jalt
journalThe research journal of
the Japan Association
for Language Teaching

Volume 39 • No. 1 • May 2017

全国語学教育学会

Japan Association for Language Teaching¥1,900 ISSN 0287-2420

JALT Journal
Volume 39 • No. 1
EditorAnne McLellan Howard
Miyazaki International College

May, 2017

Associate Editor
Eric Hauser
University of Electro-Communications
and University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Consulting Editors
Melodie Cook
University of Niigata Prefecture
Greg Sholdt
Kobe University
Editorial Board
William Acton
Trinity Western University,
CanadaDavid Aline
Kanagawa University
David Beglar
Temple University—Japan
CampusJames Dean Brown
University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa, USA
Charles Browne
Meiji Gakuin University
Yuko Goto Butler
University of Pennsylvania, USA
Christine Pearson Casanave
Temple University—Japan
Campus
Eton Churchill
Kanagawa University
Steve Cornwell
Osaka Jogakuin University

Reviews Editor
Greg Rouault
Tezukayama Gakuin University
Assistant Reviews Editor
John Nevara
Kagoshima University

Japanese-Language Editor
Ken Urano
Hokkai-Gakuen University
Japanese-Language
Associate Editor
Yo In’nami
Chuo University

Neil Cowie
Okayama University
Anne Ediger
Hunter College, City University of
New York, USA
James A. Elwood
Meiji University
Peter Gobel
Kyoto Sangyo University
Tim Greer
Kobe University
Michael Guest
Miyazaki University
Yuri Hosoda
Kanagawa University
Ian Isemonger
Kumamoto University
Yuri Kite
Kansai University
Darren Lingley
Kochi University
Setsuko Mori
Kinki University

Tim Murphey
Kanda University of International
Studies
Carol Rinnert
Hiroshima City University
Gordon Robson
Showa Women’s University
Hidetoshi Saito
Ibaraki University
Hideki Sakai
Shinshu University
David Shea
Keio University
Tamara Swenson
Osaka Jogakuin University
Deryn Verity
Pennsylvania State University
Yoshinori J. Watanabe
Sophia University
Sayoko Yamashita
Jissen Women’s University

Additional Readers: Shuichi Amano, Scott Aubrey, Gregory Glasgow, Atsushi Iino, Chiharu Izumimoto,
Keita Kikuchi, Atsushi Mizumoto, Katsumasa Shimada, Takeo Tanaka, Jun’ichi Wada, Yoichi Watari

JALT Journal Production Editor: Aleda Krause
JALT Journal Proofreading: Amy Brown, Susan Gilford, Marie Kjeldgaard, Sarah Lemmon, Kurtis McDonald,
Steve McGuire, Sachiko Nakao, Barbara Northwood, Gavin O’Neill
JALT Publications Board Chair: Gerald Talandis
JALT Journal Layout & Design: Malcolm Swanson
JALT Journal on the Internet: http://jalt-publications.org/jj/ Website Editor: Malcolm Swanson

Contents
3
4

In this Issue
From the Editor

May 2017
Volume 39 • No. 1

Articles529

Effects of Preparation and Use of Keyword Lists on a Classroom StoryRetelling Test — Hidetoshi Saito
A Comparison of Introductions in Japanese-Authored Japanese
Articles, Japanese-Authored English Articles, and Articles by English
Native Speakers —­ Charles M. Mueller

Reviews
57
61
64
68
72
75
78

Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom (Masayuki
Teranishi, Yoshifumi Saito, and Katie Wales, Eds.) — Reviewed by
Scott Bean
Where is Language? An Anthropologist’s Questions on Language,
Literature and Performance (Ruth Finnegan) — Reviewed by Eucharia
Donnery
Literature in Language Education, 2nd ed. (Geoff Hall) — Reviewed by
Paul Freeborn
Contemporary Task-Based Language Teaching in Asia (Michael Thomasand Hayo Reinders, Eds.) — Reviewed by Justin Harris
Researching Translation and Interpreting (Claudia V. Angelelli and
Brian James Baer, Eds.) — Reviewed by Jakub E. Marszalenko
Language for Specific Purposes (Sandra Gollin-Kies, David R. Hall, andStephen H. Moore) — Reviewed by Sayaka Morita
Canadian English: A Sociolinguistic Perspective (James A. Walker) —Reviewed by Andrew Reimann

JALT Journal Information
82

		

Information for Contributors (English and Japanese)

All materials in this publication are copyright ©2017 by JALT and their respective authors.

Japan Association for Language Teaching
A Nonprofit Organization
The Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) is a nonprofit professional organization
dedicated to the improvement of language teaching and learning in Japan. It provides a forum
for the exchange of new ideas and techniques and a means of keeping informed about developments in the rapidly changing field of second and foreign language education. Established in
1976, JALT serves an international membership of approximately 3,000 language teachers. Thereare 32 JALT chapters and 27 special interest groups (SIGs). JALT is a founder of PAC (Pan-Asian
Consortium), which is an association of language teacher organizations in Pacific Asia. PAC holds
annual regional conferences and exchanges information among its member organizations. JALT
is the Japan affiliate of International TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)
and a branch of IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language).
JALT is also affiliated with many other international and domestic organizations.
JALT publishes JALT Journal, a semiannual research journal; The Language Teacher, abimonthly periodical containing articles, teaching activities, reviews, and announcements
about professional concerns; and the annual JALT Post Conference Publication.
The JALT International Conference on Language Teaching and Learning and Educational Materials Exposition attracts some 2,000 participants annually and offers over 600 papers, workshops,
colloquia, and poster sessions. Each JALT chapter holds local meetings and JALT’s SIGs provide
information and newsletters on specific areas of interest. JALT also sponsors special events suchas workshops and conferences on specific themes and awards annual grants for research projects
related to language teaching and learning.
Membership is open to those interested in language education and includes the option of joining one chapter and one SIG, copies of JALT publications, and free or discounted admission to
JALT-sponsored events. JALT members can join as many additional SIGs as they wish for an annual
fee of ¥2,000 per SIG. For information, contact the JALT Central Office or visit the JALT website.

JALT National Officers, 2017–2018

President: . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Richmond Stroupe
Vice President: . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Naomi Fujishima
Auditor: . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Joe Tomei
Director of Treasury: . . . . . . . . .. . . .  Robert Chartrand
Director of Records: . . . . . . . . . .. . . .  Maiko K. Nakano
Director of Program: . . . . . . . . .. . . .  Louise Ohashi
Director of Membership: .. . . . .. . . .  Fred Carruth
Director of Public Relations: . . . . . . Thomas E. Bieri

Chapters
Akita, East Shikoku, Fukui, Fukuoka, Gifu, Gunma, Hiroshima, Hokkaido, Ibaraki, Iwate, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Kyoto, Matsuyama, Nagoya, NanKyu, Nara, Niigata, Oita, Okayama, Okinawa,
Osaka, Saitama, Sendai, Shinshu, Shizuoka, Tokyo, Tottori, Toyohashi, West Tokyo, Yamagata,
Yokohama.

Special Interest Groups

Bilingualism; Business Communications; College and University Educators; ComputerAssisted Language Learning; Critical Thinking; Extensive Reading; Framework and Language
Portfolio; Gender Awareness in Language Education; Global Issues in Language Education;
Japanese as a Second Language; Learner Development; Lifelong Language Learning; Literaturein Language Teaching; Materials Writers; Mind, Brain, and Education; Mixed, Augmented, andVirtual Realities; Other Language Educators; Pragmatics; School Owners; Speech, Drama, & Debate; Study Abroad; Task-Based Learning; Teacher Development; Teachers Helping Teachers;
Teaching Younger Learners; Testing and Evaluation; Vocabulary.

JALT Central OfficeUrban Edge Building, 5F 1-37-9 Taito, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0016, Japan
Tel.: 03-3837-1630; Fax: 03-3837-1631; Email: jco@jalt.org;
Website: <www.jalt.org>

In This Issue

3

ArticlesFor our May issue we are pleased to present two feature articles. In the first,
Hidetoshi Saito looks at the effects of test preparation and keyword lists on
a story-retelling task. In the second, Charles Mueller compares introductions to research articles written in English by English native speakers, inEnglish by native speakers of Japanese, and in Japanese by native speakers
of Japanese.

Reviews

With contributions from the new Assistant Reviews Editor, John Nevara, thisissue of JALT Journal features seven reviews. Scott Bean opens with the firstof two reviews on literature and language learning. Next, Eucharia Donnery explores Ruth Finnegan’s ethnographic account of what language is.
In the third slot, Paul Freeborn provides a second look into literature inlanguage education from a book with that very title. We sourced a fourth
reviewer through the JALT TBL SIG and Justin Harris came forward to
tackle Contemporary Task-Based Language Teaching in Asia, coedited byMichael Thomas and JALT Publications alumnus Hayo Reinders. Jakub E.
Marszalenko then lends his expertise to examine a research-based title ontranslating and interpreting. In the next to last review, Language for SpecificPurposes from Palgrave Macmillan’s Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics Series is appraised by Sayaka Morita. Wrapping things up, Andrew
Reimann reports on a title focused on Canadian English.

4

JALT Journal

Editor’s Message
My time as JALT Journal Editor is winding down, and I am already starting
to feel nostalgic. The work is hard, but it has deepened my appreciation for
how JALT comes together as a scholarly community to produce this journal
twice a year. My gratitude as always goes out to the authors and reviewers who do the most vital labor. The Associate Editor, Eric Hauser, has been
an invaluable resource as he prepares to take on the duties of Editor nextNovember. Deepest thanks also go to Aleda Krause and her team for putting
together the journal with patience and good humor every time.
Anne McLellan HowardArticles
Effects of Preparation and Use of
Keyword Lists on a Classroom StoryRetelling Test
Hidetoshi Saito
Ibaraki University
The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to explore the effects of test
practice and keyword use on story-retelling test performance under four conditions.
Eighty-two beginning and intermediate Japanese university students enrolled in
English courses were required to practice orally summarizing two passages using
a keyword list and also instructed to orally summarize one of two previously unseen passages without preparation. In the test session, two groups experienced two
conditions that were identical and one that was different. Both groups retold one
practiced passage with keywords at hand and a new passage without a keyword list.
Group 1 retold another practiced passage with the keyword list withheld, whereas
Group 2 read an additional new passage, made a keyword list, and retold it with the
keyword list but without practice. Test practice was found to improve performance,
but keyword list use induced better performance only when used with practice.

テスト準備とキーワードリストは口頭要約テストに役立つか。この研究はテスト準備とキーワードリストの使用が口頭での要約テストに役立つかを調査することを目的とした。日本
人大学生（初中級者）2グループ（計82名）が二つの同一条件と一つの異なる条件でそれぞれ英文要約を行った（計三条件づつ）。参加者は予め二種の英文が渡され、キーワードリス
トを作って練習をするように指示された。また、その場で新しい英文の要約を行うことも指示された。試験当日、両グループともまず練習した英文をリストとともに要約し、その後新しい英文の要約も行った。グループ1はさらに、準備したキーワードリストなしで練習した
英文の要約を行った。グループ2はその場で新しい英文を読み、キーワードリストを作ってJALT Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, May 2017

5

6

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

要約を行った。結果として、練習したほうが、練習をしていない場合より良いが、キーワー
ドリストは練習した場合のみに有効であることがわかった。

O

pportunity for practice is critical in learning a new language. Repeated practice is required to automatize skills (Anderson, 1999).
Despite the significant role of practice in skill learning, practicing
for tests has been considered inappropriate because of purported inflationof test scores without actual improvement in the target skills or knowledge(Lai & Waltman, 2008). From a classroom learning perspective, however,preparing for performance tests, such as speaking and writing tests, is widely believed to have a positive influence on student engagement in learningin and outside the classroom, especially in the context of foreign language
learning, where learners have little opportunity to use the target languagein daily life.
To explore whether test practice and preparation improve classroom test
performance, this study focused on the effect of practice and use of a selfprepared keyword list on oral test performance. Two hypotheses relevant to
the role of practice and keyword use in the classroom-testing context were
proposed: the test practice effect (TPE) hypothesis and the keyword use effect (KUE) hypothesis.

Literature Review

The first hypothesis in this study is the TPE hypothesis, which states that test
practice of the target performance (rather than no practice) will facilitate
performance on speaking test tasks. Previous studies in second language acquisition (SLA) have consistently shown that repeated practice improves thelearner’s speaking performance on a task (Arevart & Nation, 1991; Bygate,
2001; Bygate & Samuda, 2005; Gass, Mackey, Alvarez-Torres, & FernándezGarcía, 1999; Kawauchi, 2005; Lynch & Maclean, 2000; Williams, 1992). The
TPE hypothesis is consistent with these studies, revealing that practice orrepeated implementations of the target activity (defined by DeKeyser, 2007)
improve current skills and hence facilitate language performance.
One explanation for the practice effect is that previous experience withthe same task type (familiarity of task structure) and content (prior knowledge; Mackey, Kanganas, & Oliver, 2007; Skehan, 1998) results in reduced
cognitive load and thus efficient processing of the conceptualization andformulation of speech (Bygate & Samuda, 2005). Better performance in
combinations of accuracy, fluency, and complexity can reflect efficiency incognitive processing (Robinson, 2005; Skehan, 1998). Efficient cognitive

Saito7

processing is made possible by bypassing access to declarative knowledge
and combining those declarative (or descriptive, explicit) rules to form anew, simpler rule (Anderson, 2007).
Although SLA research supports the practice effect, testing studies haveshown little support for the effects of preparation or coaching for large-scale
American and British academic tests, including the Cambridge FCE, GRE,IELTS, SAT, TOEFL, and other academic aptitude tests (Alderman & Powers,
1980; Bachman, Davidson, Ryan, & Choi, 1995; Green, 2007; Nguyen, 2007;
Powers, 1985, 1986, 1993). However, because the preparation programs
compared and aggregated in each study varied in length, teaching methods,
and content, nil effects based on noneffective preparation in one program
were likely to offset potential benefits of effective preparation in anotherprogram. A recent, well-controlled large-scale EFL test preparation study(Xie, 2013) showed a small but statistically significant effect of drilling on
test scores. This implies that the efficiency of test preparation depends onthe extent to which preparation matches the actual test task—whether what
is rote-learned is on the test. In fact, the degree of similarity between an
actual assessment and classroom instruction may account for this apparent
contradiction among research studies (Ruiz-Primo, Shavelson, Hamilton, &Klein, 2002). The effect of test preparation on large-scale, norm-referenced,
academic tests could be smaller because what was tested may have been
“distal/remote” from what had been instructed in lessons and hence insensitive to student learning. On the other hand, the effect of practice in SLA
studies is larger because what the participants repeatedly practiced is identical to what was tested in the studies. In cognitive psychology, this is known
as transfer-appropriate processing: learners best transfer skills learned in acertain context to a similar context (Lyster & Sato, 2013).
Although repeated practice potentially boosts immediate test performance, the use of a keyword list—commonly employed in public speaking—may also improve oral performance. However, none of the previous
studies in these areas has tested the effects of the availability of a keyword
list. Authors of several textbooks on teaching formal speechmaking (e.g.,
Gregory, 2002; Nation & Newton, 2008) have asserted that brief speaking
notes not only encourage natural speaking but also provide the speakerwith cues and a sense of security. The keyword use effect (KUE) hypothesis
proposed herein states, based on a logical extension of these claims, that theuse of a keyword list improves oral test performance. Joe (1998) compared
the effect of the presence of the original passage, rather than keywords, ona story-retelling task. In Joe’s study, after a 15-minute practice, two groups

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 20178

orally summarized a passage, but only one had access to the passage whilesummarizing. Although both outperformed a nonpracticing control group in
vocabulary recall, there was no difference between the two practice groups.
This suggests that practice, not access to the passage, is important; in otherwords, once practiced, vocabulary recall no longer benefits from the availability of the passage while retelling. If generalized to the present context,
this is contrary to the KUE hypothesis and the belief regarding the usefulness of keywords in story retelling and speech.
Questions still remain regarding the extent to which practiced performance differs from impromptu performance and whether keyword use
boosts performance. Furthermore, it is of great interest to examine whether
the effects of practice and keyword use are additive.

Hypotheses of the Present Study

Four different conditions to examine the plausibility of the two hypotheses
were set up (see Table 1). In the fully assisted condition, participants hada chance to practice and use a keyword list for the task. In the practiced
condition, participants had a chance to practice and make a keyword list
but did not have access to it for the task. In the keyword-assisted condition,
participants did not have a chance to practice, but they did make a keyword
list and had access to it during the task. Finally, in the impromptu condition,
participants did not have a chance to practice nor to make a keyword list
for the task. Performance under these four conditions was compared andpredictions generated from the TPE and the KUE hypotheses, as describedin Table 2, were tested.

Table 1. Conditions in the Present Study

Conditions

1 Fully assisted
2 Practiced

3 Keyword-assisted
4 Impromptu

Practiced✓✓
00

Availability

Keyword list
✓
0

✓
0

SaitoTable 2. Predictions of the TPE and KUE Hypothesis

Contrast Condition
1

Fully assisted

3

Fully assisted

2
4
5
6

Fully assisted
Practiced
Practiced

Keywordassisted

Hypothesis

Test practiceeffectKeyword use
effectCondition>>

Impromptu

=
>
>
>
-

>
=
<
-

>

9

Practiced

Keywordassisted
Keywordassisted

Impromptu
Impromptu

Note. > indicates that the condition in the left column is predicted to induce better
performance compared to the condition in the right column; = indicates that performances on both conditions are predicted to be equivalent; - indicates that the
hypothesis cannot predict performance.

As shown in Table 2, the KUE hypothesis predicts the advantages of keyword use in Contrasts 1, 3, 4, and 6. The KUE hypothesis lacks a prediction
regarding Contrast 5 (practiced vs. impromptu) because it does not concern
the keyword list, and it predicts equal effects in Contrast 2 (fully assisted
vs. keyword-assisted) because of the availability of a keyword list in bothconditions.
The TPE hypothesis predicts the advantages of test practice over nonpractice in Contrasts 2, 3, 4, and 5. However, because the TPE hypothesis does
not consider the role of a keyword list, predictions for Contrasts 1 and 6
differ from those of other contrasts. The TPE hypothesis lacks a prediction
regarding Contrast 6 (keyword-assisted vs. impromptu) because it does notconcern practice. Concerning Contrast 1 (fully assisted vs. practiced), it canbe assumed that repeated practice may reduce the need for keyword list
assistance, as in Joe’s (1998) study on oral test performance. A strong version of the TPE hypothesis could then mean that practicing facilitates better
performance by participants on the test task, and when ample practice isimplemented, a keyword list does not further improve test performance.

10

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

MethodDesignThis is a repeated-measures study. All participants took a standardized
speaking test (Telephone Standard Speaking Test [TSST]; ALC Press, 2016),
after which they were exposed to three task conditions—fully assisted, impromptu, and either practiced or keyword-assisted—of a story-retelling taskusing different passages. Performance in the impromptu condition served asa baseline to which the performance scores of the three other conditions
were compared. Critical comparisons were made within subjects; baseline
and target conditions were compared within each group, rather than to control or experimental groups. However, one between-group comparison (thepracticed condition vs. keyword-assisted condition) was necessary because
participants in each group performed only one or the other of these conditions.

Participants

Eighty-two native-speaking Japanese university freshmen and sophomores(34 males and 48 females, aged 18-21) participated in the study. Group 1(n = 29), was made up of students majoring in education who were enrolled
at a national university in an English course that met for 15 weeks once aweek for 90 minutes. Group 2 (n = 53) consisted of students in two classes,
one majoring in education (n = 20) in a different section of the same course
as Group 1 and the other majoring in humanities and science (n = 33) at thesame university in a general English course that met for 15 weeks twice aweek for 90 minutes. The main purpose of these courses was to improve
discussion and debate skills. All participants took the TSST approximately 2
weeks before the story-retelling test. Table 3 shows that most participantsin both groups performed at Levels 3 and 4 of nine possible levels, except
for six students in Group 2 who performed at Levels 5 and 6. The TSST score
was regarded as a proficiency factor in the present study and entered as amoderating variable, as in previous studies (e.g., Kawauchi, 2005).

SaitoTable 3. The Speaking Proficiency Levels of ParticipantsProficiency level
3 (Novice high)

4 (Intermediate low)

5 (Intermediate low plus)
6 (Intermediate mid)
Total

Materials

Group 1

Group 2

0

5

9

20
0

29

11

28
19
1

53

The three reading passages for this task were selected from a universitylevel EFL textbook (Day & Yamanaka, 1998). The passages covered interracial marriage, gay rights, and notification to cancer patients, all of whichwere appropriate debate topics for the participants, whose mean English
proficiency was low intermediate or high beginning. Four readability indices confirmed an approximate equivalence of surface linguistic readabilityof the three passages (see Appendix B). Two graduate students and two
university professors of English examined the comprehensibility of the passages and agreed unanimously that all passages were approximately equallycomprehensible.

Procedure

Given the course objectives, the use of a story-retelling test—oral summary of a reading passage—was considered appropriate, and all participants practiced the task in pairs four times with a self-prepared keyword
list guided by comprehension questions on the worksheet. Earlier studies
have also suggested that story-retelling tasks facilitate the acquisition of
L2 vocabulary (Joe, 1998) and grammar (Muranoi, 2007), possibly because
the text provides repeated opportunities for the learner to encounter anduse the target forms. Story retelling has also been a commonly used L2 test
method (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010; Underhill, 1987) and has been
supported for its appropriateness for university courses (Hirai & Koizumi,2009). The target construct here is skill in orally summarizing a short reading passage—a necessary preparatory skill for debate.
On the test, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the six possible sequences of the three reading passages (i.e., ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB,
CBA). Assignment of passages was counterbalanced across participants.

12

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

One week before the test, the participants were given two new reading passages and were encouraged (on the grounds that the passages would be partof their final exam) to practice using a self-prepared keyword list. They werealso informed that in addition to one of the two passages they practiced,
they would also retell new passages, which would be chosen by the tester
during the test.
During the test session, participants came to the instructor’s room individually. As shown in Figure 1, with the exception of the second retelling,both groups underwent the same test procedures. In the first retelling task(the fully assisted condition), both groups orally summarized one practiced
passage—chosen by the instructor during the test—using a keyword list.
In the second retelling task, Group 1 retold the second passage, which they
had also prepared for, but the prepared keyword list was withheld (the practiced condition). The participants were assured, to alleviate any surprise(because they had been told they would have to retell only one of the twopracticed passages), that this particular performance would not be includedin their final grade. In the second task for Group 2, they were given a new
passage and asked to read it and make a keyword list within 5 minutes(the keyword-assisted condition). In addition, they were allowed to use thedictionary and spend an additional 2 minutes to prepare, if needed. In fact,
all participants spent 7 minutes reading and making a keyword list. Participants then performed a story retelling using the newly made keyword list.
In the third retelling task, both groups retold a new third passage given during the test, with no keywords available. They were given 5 minutes to readthe third passage and were permitted to use a dictionary. All participants
finished reading within 5 minutes, and 22 participants used the dictionary
once or twice. Although there was no time limit for the retellings, nearly allparticipants completed each retelling within 5 minutes, the only exception
being one participant who spent about 5 minutes and 30 seconds on two
performances.
In this study, the order of conditions that each participant went throughwas fixed, because it was believed that participants could feel more relaxed if they started with what they had practiced before performing theimpromptu condition. Counterbalancing of the order of conditions was
avoided to elicit the best possible performance—that is, “biased for best”(Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010, p. 44). The fixed order of three conditions
could possibly generate incidental practice and fatigue effects. However, an
incidental practice effect—not the deliberate practice effect on which thepresent study was focused—was unlikely to occur, because all participants

Saito13

had ample opportunity to practice the same task type before the test. Although the possibility of a fatigue effect could not be eliminated, the fact thatthe entire test session took only 25 minutes minimized this concern.
Group 1

Group 2TASK 1: Performed the practiced summary with the keyword list
(the fully assisted condition).
Turned in the two keyword lists and the completed questionnaire.
TASK 2: Performed thepracticed summary
without keywords(the practiced condition).

TASK 2: Read a new passage
and made a keyword list.
Performed the nonpracticed
summary with keywords(the keyword-assisted condition).

TASK 3: Read a new passage. Performed the nonpracticed summary
without keywords (the impromptu condition).

Figure 1. Test procedure of the present study. The only difference between
Groups 1 and 2 in the test procedure was the second task.

Participants also completed an open-ended questionnaire investigating
how they practiced for the test as well as how long they spent practicing.
They returned the completed questionnaire along with the keyword lists
to the researcher after the first story-retelling task. When necessary, theresearcher asked questions after the test session to clarify participants’ responses to the questionnaire. The researcher then asked each participant if
he or she had ever read the new passage, to detect leakage from classmates,
but all denied having done so.
All performances were audio recorded, and the randomized audio files
were subjected to blind evaluation by three raters, all of whom had exten-

14

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

sive experience in teaching English at the college level in Japan and weretrained for about 2 hours by the author before they started rating. They
rated performances on three categories—language (mainly grammatical accuracy), fluency, and content (the adequacy of information covered)—using
a 4-point scale (see Appendix A). This test was developed for the course andpiloted twice before this research. The Rasch reliabilities of the second pilot
test were .89 (examinees), .88 (raters), and .97 (items).
In this study, the participants themselves determined the extent to which
they practiced. The instructor advised them to write keywords on the worksheet and to practice speaking aloud using the keyword list, as practiced in
the lessons. The practice time thus was at each learner’s discretion. It mustbe acknowledged that this lack of standardization in practice time weakened the internal validity of the study; however, it strengthened the study’s
ecological validity in that such individual variation in practice time reflectedclassroom reality.

Analysis

Because key statistical assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variance)
were met, one between-subject and one within-subject (proficiency [TSST
test scores] x condition [fully assisted, impromptu, and keyword-assisted orpracticed]) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Rasch performance measures
as the dependent variable was run for each group to test the predictions.
The Rasch analysis with the Facets program (Linacre, 2008) calibrates rater
severity, item difficulty, condition difficulty, and participant performancemeasures. By taking into account such measurement factors (facets) as
raters, items, and conditions, the Rasch analysis generates more plausible
performance scores, which would not be possible with raw scores alone.
The Rasch analysis allows for comparing measures across test facets on thecommon logit (log odds ratio) scale. Deviant raters, items, and participants
are flagged through associated fit statistics for quality control. The Raschmodel requires several strong assumptions, one of which is unidimensionality. The unidimensionality requirement means that all items on the sametest measure the same dimension; misfitting items, persons, or both will
return extreme fit statistics. The sample size of the present study, 82, wasshort of the recommended sample size of 120 (30 observations per factor)
for achieving stability across samples (Linacre, n.d.), thus limiting generalizability. In addition, as a follow-up analysis, the potential mediating roles of
the keyword list and the length of practice time for performance gain were
examined through linear regression analyses.

Saito15

Results

The Rasch analysis indicated high reliabilities of all four facets of raters,
items, conditions, and participants (see Appendix C). The separation reliability value, 3.42, of participants indicates that participants can be divided
into three groups. Table 4 displays descriptive statistics for the Rasch performance measures for the two groups. In both groups, two notable points
are that, first, the differences between the fully assisted and impromptu
conditions were greater than three logits with large effect sizes of d = 1.79
(Group 1) and 1.33 (Group 2). Second, the impromptu condition had thelargest standard deviation, indicating a wide variation in performance.
The Rasch analysis indicated a good fit of the data, with no misfitting items
or raters. There was only one strongly misfitting participant based on the
proposed criteria (Fisher, 2007), but this participant was retained for thesubsequent analyses, because the purpose was descriptive for hypothesis
testing rather than prescriptive for measurement construction. The performance measures generated from this Rasch run were then subjected to
one between-subject and one within-subject (proficiency levels x condition)
ANOVA.

Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Participant Performance
Measures by Condition
Group 1 (n = 29)
M

SD

Fully assisted

2.10

1.36

Impromptu

-1.07

2.10

Condition
Practiced

Keyword-assisted

0.48
-

1.74
-

Group 2 (n = 53)
M

SD

2.74

2.18

-0.46

2.58

-

-0.29

Note. These are Rasch logit measures derived from raw scores.

-

1.97

Table 5 shows the results of the mixed-design ANOVA for Groups 1 and2. The findings indicated statistically significant main effects of conditions
and proficiency but no interaction effect for either group (Figures 2 & 3).
This means that performances across conditions differed regardless of proficiency. The post hoc multiple comparisons for Group 1 indicated statistically significant differences among the three conditions (the fully assisted,practiced, and impromptu conditions). The follow-up analysis for Group 2

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 201716

showed statistically significant differences between the fully assisted andthe keyword-assisted conditions, but not between the keyword-assisted andthe impromptu conditions. Because of the research design, these ANOVAs
did not include a comparison between the practiced and the keyword-assisted conditions. A between-group t-test comparison of the two conditions
was thus performed with the Bonferroni-adjusted probability set at .025.
To remedy unequal sample sizes between the two conditions, 29 cases of
those in the keyword-assisted condition were randomly sampled to matchthe sample size of the practiced condition. The result showed no statistically significant difference between the practiced and the keyword-assisted
conditions, t(56) = 1.57, p > .10, effect size r = .16. To summarize the results,
Table 6 displays all contrasts again. The TPE hypothesis is supported in Contrasts 2, 3, and 5; the KUE hypothesis is supported in Contrasts 1 and 3. Bothare rejected in Contrasts 4 and 6.

Table 5. Results of Repeated-Measure ANOVAs for Groups 1 and 2

Sourcedf

Interaction (C x P)

2

Condition (C)

2

Error

54

Proficiency (P)1Intercept
Error

1

27

Group 1
F

24.44
0.34

4.40

p

.00
.71

.04

η

2

.01

p

η2

14.92 .00

.23

df

Within subjects.47

Group 2

2
6

98

F

Between subjects
.14

1
3

49

0.79 .58

6.72 .00.04.29

Saito17

Table 6. Predictions Supported by the Results of the Present Study

Condition

1. Fully assisted
2. Fully assisted
3. Fully assisted
4. Practiced
5. Practiced

6. Keyword-assisted

Hypothesis

Test practiceeffectKeyword use
effect

>

>

=
>

1

1,2

>
>

1

-

Condition>

Practiced<

Keyword-assisted

2

=

1,2

-

>

Keyword-assisted
Impromptu
Impromptu
Impromptu

Note. Superscript 1 indicates the results of Group 1 supports the prediction; superscript 2 indicates the same for Group 2.

Figure 2. The boxplot of performance measures of three conditions forGroup 1.

18

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Figure 3. The boxplot of performance measures of three conditions forGroup 2.

Further Analysis of the Data

An additional issue was the potential mediating roles played by the keyword
list and the length of practice time for performance improvement. Two independent raters checked the total number of words that appeared bothon each participant’s keyword list and in the actual transcript of the fully
assisted and practiced conditions. The keyword-assisted condition was not
examined due to the statistically nonsignificant results mentioned above.
The rater agreement ratio was 96% for the fully assisted condition and
94% for the practiced condition; and all disagreements were subsequently
resolved. The average number of words that participants listed and actuallyused was 23.64 (SD = 15.06) for the fully assisted condition and 24.31 (SD =12.07) for the practiced condition. Average self-reported length of practice
was 97.79 minutes (SD = 72.20). Both the number of keywords and practicetime were positively skewed. Because of the need for normalizing the variables and the power law of learning (Anderson, 2005, p. 188) warranting astrong assumption of a power relationship between practice time or keyword use and gain scores, all variables were log-transformed. Key statisticalassumptions (normality, homoscedasticity, nonmulticollinearity) being met,
regression analyses were run to test the predictability of the two variables

Saito19(time and keywords) for performance gain indicated by the two difference
scores: the impromptu/fully assisted scores and the impromptu/practiced
scores. Those difference scores were derived by subtracting the measuresof the impromptu condition from those of the fully assisted and practiced
conditions, which is assumed to reflect gain by practice. Independent variables were the number of keywords along with two covariates: practice timeand proficiency (TSST test scores). The results suggested that the number of
keywords used, practice time, and proficiency were not statistically significant predictors of either performance difference score, F(3, 78) = .85, p > .05,
adjusted r2 = .00 for the impromptu/fully assisted and F(3, 25) = .34, p > .05,
adjusted r2 = -.02 for the impromptu/practiced. These results suggest thatthe number of keywords actually jotted down and the number of hours ofpractice did not proportionately improve performance. One might make thecriticism that individual variations in keyword use and practice time in thepresent study could have influenced the effects of conditions. These statistically nonsignificant results of regression analyses address this concern andsuggest that the number of keywords used itself does not matter. They alsosuggest that longer practice does not proportionately boost performance
scores; however, the opportunity to practice still seems to have an impact.

Discussion and Conclusion

In the present study I investigated the effect of test practice and keyword
use on story-retelling task performance through testing of the TPE andKUE hypotheses. The results were not conclusive. Neither of the competing
hypotheses is clearly superior to the other. In Contrast 1 (the fully assisted
condition vs. the practiced condition), the KUE hypothesis is supported
because the use of keywords further improves performance comparedto performance without them. This benefit disappears, however, in thestatistically nonsignificant Contrast 6 (keyword-assisted vs. impromptu),
suggesting that performance with the keyword list is no better than performance without it. Although the statistically nonsignificant result ofContrast 4 (practiced vs. keyword-assisted) supports neither hypothesis,
the results of Contrasts 2, 3, and 5 support the TPE hypothesis. The TPE
hypothesis can explain that test practice helps the participants achieve ahigher score than does performance without practice (Contrasts 3, 5) by amargin of more than three logits. It also explains the power of practice observed in Contrast 2 (fully assisted vs. keyword-assisted), such that practice, along with the use of a keyword list, leads to a better performance
than does a keyword list alone.

20

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

The KUE hypothesis was supported in Contrasts 1 and 3 (fully practiced
vs. practiced or impromptu), in which the keyword list was used with practice. This suggests that keyword lists have an effect only when used withpractice. The test takers in the keyword-assisted condition constructed an
immediate keyword list, which emulates pretask planning in previous studies. Thus, this part of the present study seems to replicate the null effects ofpretask planning in language testing contexts (e.g., Iwashita, McNamara, &Elder, 2001; Wigglesworth & Elder, 2010).
Although explaining the exact cognitive mechanisms of the differential
roles of the keyword list is beyond the scope of the present study, a reasonable speculation is that students at this level (i.e., lower intermediate
and upper beginners) could not take advantage of the keyword list without practice. Each condition presented competing demands of cognitive
processing to perform the task. In the keyword-assisted condition, the test
takers needed to read and understand the passage, plan the retelling, andselect and write down the keywords. The keyword list-making task, whichshould have helped the actual story retelling, might have backfired in the
keyword-assisted condition because the test takers were busy making a list
rather than planning what to say in the story retelling. In the fully assisted
condition, the test takers already understood the story and had practiced forthe story retelling and were thus able to save their cognitive resources forthe on-line demand of articulating the well-practiced speech to which the
keyword list provided cues. In sum, the findings suggest that the keyword
list-making task in the keyword-assisted condition may hinder language
planning; the dual purposes of the task in anxiety-provoking test contexts
limit the availability of cognitive resources for optimal speech performance.
This may be the main reason why the keyword list did not help and served
only as a security blanket in the keyword-assisted condition. In contrast, thesame keyword list facilitated performance in the fully assisted condition.
Compared to practice alone (the practiced condition), the test takers had
saved their cognitive resources due to practice, thus affording the benefits
from the keyword list. A caveat, however, is that this may be true only forlearners at this level.
The present study shows that the TPE hypothesis is supported when thetest task is identical to the prepared task, which corroborates the bulk of
SLA studies on task repetition. Nevertheless, even if the same type of task
is used, benefits from practice may not be transferable to different topics,
as suggested by the fact that the worst performances occurred in the impromptu condition. One could argue that this is broadly consistent with theSaito21

small effects found in test preparation studies, which have indicated thateven if the test takers practice using similar types of questions, transferability to the real test is negligible. However, because of the lack of a pretest, it
is unclear whether the impromptu performance improved when comparedto performance before practice. This is one limitation of the present study.
Another limitation is the restriction of sample size and task, which limits
the generalizability of the results. In addition, there were limitations regarding research design. The study did not include any analyses using discourse
measures, mainly because of their inherent problems in meeting statisticalassumptions. This, however, certainly limits the interpretation of the results
beyond rated performance.
Finally, it is worth commenting on the role of practice in the classroom
performance test. Without the help of practice and the use of a keyword list,
the participants in the present study could have demonstrated worse performance, as shown in the impromptu condition. This classroom assessment
has thus encouraged the learner to practice to learn, fulfilling its purpose. In
the context of a standardized test, test preparation using even part of what
is going to be on the test—also called current-form preparation (Popham,1991)—is claimed to be educationally unjustifiable. However, this assertion
needs to be reconsidered in light of performance tests in classroom contexts,
because test preparation allows students (a) to feel comfortable by knowing what needs to be practiced; thus, (b) to work hard for practice (positive
washback); and (c) to demonstrate their upper limit of performance or thezone of proximal distance in the test. The present study provided at least
some support for (b) and (c). For language skills development, preparation
for performance tests in the classroom should be used wisely. Further research into the transfer effects of practice in a pre- and posttest design andgeneralizability of the findings across different proficiency levels will help
inform better test preparation for both students and teachers.

Acknowledgements

This study is partially supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research(Task no. 19520475) awarded to the author. The author is grateful to Dann
Gossman, Kunihiro Nagasawa, and reviewers of earlier versions of this paper.
Hidetoshi Saito teaches pre- and in-service EFL teachers at Ibaraki Univer-

22

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

sity. His current research interests are in modeling formative assessmentand establishing instructional approaches for a three-person discussion
format—known as Interactive English Forums in Ibaraki Prefecture.

References

ALC Press (2016). Telephone Standard Speaking Test (TSST). Retrieved fromhttps://tsst.alc.co.jp

Alderman, D. L., & Powers, D. E. (1980). The effects of special preparation on SATVerbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 239-251.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1162485
Anderson, J. R. (1999). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York,
NY: Worth.
Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Arevart, S., & Nation, P. (1991). Fluency improvement in a second language. RELC
Journal, 22, 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829102200106
Bachman, L. F., Davidson, F., Ryan, K., & Choi, I. (1995). An investigation into thecomparability of two tests of English as a foreign language: The CambridgeTOEFL comparability study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles andclassroom practices (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral
language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic
tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow, UK:
Pearson Education.

Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of taskrepetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language(pp. 37-74). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Day, R. R., & Yamanaka, J. (1998). Impact issues: 30 key issues to help you express
yourself in English. Hong Kong, China: Longman Asia ELT.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M.
DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics
and cognitive psychology (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Saito23

Fisher, Jr., W. P. (2007). Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Measurement
Transactions, 21, 1095. Retrieved from https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt211m.htm

Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effectsof task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549-581. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102
Green, A. (2007). Washback to learning outcomes: A comparative study of IELTS
preparation and university pre-sessional language courses. Assessment in
Education, 14, 75-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272880

Gregory, H. (2002). Public speaking for college and career. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Hirai, A., & Koizumi, R. (2009). Development of a practical speaking test with a positive impact on learning using a story retelling technique. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 6, 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300902801925
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in anoral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing
approach to task design. Language Learning, 51, 401-436.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00160
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on
incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357-377.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.3.357

Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives oflearners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam, theNetherlands: John Benjamins.

Lai, E. R., & Waltman, K. (2008). Test preparation: Examining teacher perception
and practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 28-45.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00120.x
Linacre, J. M. (n.d.). Estimation considerations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.winsteps.com/facetman/estimationconsiderations.htm

Linacre, J. M. (2008). Facets (Version 3.64) [Computer program]. Chicago, IL: MESA
Press.

Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250.
https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400303
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2
development. In M. D. Garcia Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. M. Adrian(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71-91).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

24

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional
feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 285-312.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x

Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.),
Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology (pp. 51-84). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Nguyen, T. N. H. (2007). Effects of test preparation on test performance–the case of
the IELTS and TOEFL iBT listening tests. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing,12, 1-24.
Popham, W. J. (1991). Appropriateness of teachers’ test-preparation practices.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 12-15.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00211.x

Powers, D. E. (1985). Effects of coaching on GRE aptitude test scores. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 22, 121-136.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01052.x

Powers, D. E. (1986). Relations of test item characteristics to test preparation/testpractice effects: A quantitative summary. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 67-77.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.100.1.67
Powers, D. E. (1993). Coaching for the SAT: A summary of the summaries and an
update. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 24-39.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1993.tb01543.x

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in acomponential framework for second language task design. International Review
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1-32.
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluationof systematic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 369-393.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10027
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.

Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language: A handbook of oral testing techniques.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Saito25

Wigglesworth, G., & Elder, C. (2010). An investigation of the effectiveness andvalidity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly,
7, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300903031779
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility ofinternational teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693-711.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586869

Xie, Q. (2013). Does test preparation work? Implications for score validity. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 196-218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2012.721423

Appendix A
Rating Scale and Main Points of Passages

Table A1. Rating Scale
Level

Score Grammar & vocabulary

4
Upper

3

• Makes small errors •that never affect•comprehensibility• Uses complex
structures (e.g.,•subordinate
clauses, relative
clauses)•• Uses a wide rangeof vocabulary andphrases, sophisticated vocabulary• Makes occasional•
small errors, which
do not affect overall
comprehension• Able to produce•
longer stretches ofsentences (complex
structures)• Uses adequate
vocabulary

Fluency

Content

Uses natural pauses • All main
points* are
Speech flows
coveredsmoothly andquickly
Uses natural fillers
for coping withsilence(Pronunciationmuch less influenced by L1)
Speech flows• All mainsmoothly but
points* but
contains occasional
one areunnatural pauses
coveredUses a small
amount of repetition, pauses

26

Level

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017
Score Grammar & vocabulary

Fluency• Makes numerous• Unnatural•
small errors that
repetition andmay affect comprereformulation
hensibility(self-correction)
dominates in the• Sometimes the
speechlistener needs
sympathy to• Speech contains
understand him/occasional unher
necessary pauses,
hesitant• Uses basic struc2
tures• Unnatural intonation and pronuncia• Unable to use richtion
vocabulary• Occasional smoothness may begin to
emerge, but notstable• Unable to use appropriate fillers or
may use Japanesefillers
Lower• Makes a lot of local • Speech contains•
errors, even on
a lot of pauses
basic structures,
including longand some global
pauses of 3.0
errors that hinder
seconds or more;comprehensibility
Frequent repetition, reformulation,• The listener needs
breakdown can bea lot of sympathy
observed; Speech isfor comprehension,very choppy
but it may not becomprehensible• Uses unnatural1
intonation, pronunciation• Has difficulty incontinuation• Discards turns• Shows uncertainties in the choice ofwords• Unable to use fillers
or uses Japanesefillers
Note. *Main points of each passage are described in Table A2.

Content

Two points*
are missed
or not clearly
coveredAll threepoints* arenot clearly
covered or
missedSaitoTable A2. Main Points of Passages

27

Content: International Relationship• Amir & Sachiko are international college students in the U.S., and her
boyfriend asks Sachiko to marry him.
• Sachiko hasn’t yet decided to get married with Amir because she’s very
confused.
• They have several problems such as parents’ disapproval, where to
live, where to work, and disadvantages that their children might have.
• (at least two of these problems should be mentioned)
Content: Doing the Right Thing• Yumi’s father is dying because of stomach cancer.
• Yumi is confused now, and she seeks advice from Dr. Aoki.
• They haven’t told the truth to her father, because her mother thinks it
would shock him and may shorten his life, but Yumi thinks they shouldtell the truth.

Content: Why Don’t You Accept Us?
• Wing & Jay are a gay couple.
• They want to be accepted by society and hope to live an ordinary life.
• They have problems in their life because they have to hide the truth
from friends, parents, and others.

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

28

Appendix B
Readability Indices of the Three Passages
Dale-Chall readability formula

Fry Flesch Lexile

30

4Passages Sentence Word

Diff
Wd

D-C
score Grades

Int’l

14

5.2

Why

Doing

30
30

371
354
353

18
22

5.3
5.3

5&6
5&6
5&6

3
4

4.3

650L

3.3

520L

3.9

510L

Note. Why = “Why Don’t You Accept Us?”; Doing = “Doing the Right Thing”; Int’l = “AnInternational Relationship”; all three passages were taken from Day and Yamanaka(1998). Sentence = the number of sentences; Word = the number of words; DiffWd =the number of difficult words; D-C = Readability scores from the Dale-Chall formula(appropriate for the fourth grade and beyond); Grades = Grade level; Fry = Based on
the Fry graph (appropriate for early elementary grades through college); Flesch =the Flesch Grade Level formula (appropriate for upper elementary and secondary
levels); Lexile = lexile measures from Meta Metrics Institute.

Appendix C
Summary Statistics of the Rasch Analysis of the All Facets Run
RMSE

Adj. SE

Raters.06

0.18

Passages

.06

0.35

Facets1Participants(performance)
Conditions
Items

.35
.08
.06

1.20
1.06
1.19

Separation

Reliability

3.42

.92

2.72
5.45

13.51
18.38

.88
.97
.99

1.00

Note. RMSE = root mean square standard error; Adj. SE = adjusted standard error;
separation = a measure of the spread of the estimates. 1Exact agreement amongraters was 53.2%. n (raters) = 3; n (participants) = 82.

A Comparison of Introductions inJapanese-Authored Japanese Articles,
Japanese-Authored English Articles,
and Articles by English Native Speakers
Charles M. Mueller
Fuji Women’s University
According to Swales’s (2004) analysis of research articles (RAs), introductions generally involve three “moves,” with Move 1 (M1) establishing a research territory, Move
2 (M2) identifying a gap in existing research, and Move 3 (M3) discussing how thecurrent research addresses this gap. Some cross-linguistic studies have suggested
that Asian writers organize introductions differently from English writers, with lessuse of M2, less employment of direct criticism of previous research, and more cyclingof moves. The current study examined 75 applied linguistics RAs written during thelast decade: (a) in English by English native speakers, (b) in Japanese by Japanesenative speakers, and (c) in English by Japanese native speakers. Analysis showed that
the RAs written by these three groups exhibited only minor differences. The results
suggest that Japanese-authored RAs and English native-speaker RAs are converging
around an agreed-upon set of disciplinary expectations.

Swales（ 2004)の文献研究における分析によると、序文には一般的に次の3つの「ムーブ（動き）」が含まれる。ムーブ1（M1）
では研究領域について述べ、ムーブ2（M2）
では先行研究では明らかでないことを特定し、ムーブ3（M3）では当該研究においてM2を如何に明らかにするかを示す。既存の交差言語的研究では、アジアの研究者による序文の構成は英語を母語とする研究者のそれとは異なり、M2や先行研究の直接的な批評が少なく、ムーブの繰り返しが多い
ことが示唆されている。本研究では、過去10年間に発表された応用言語学の研究論文75本を（a）英語を母語とする者の英語の論文、（b）
日本語を母語とする者の日本語の論文、（c）
日本
語を母語とする者の英語の論文の3つに分け分析した。その結果、この3グループ間にはわずか

JALT Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, May 2017

29

30

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

な相違しか見られなかった。このことから、論文執筆者の母語が日本語か英語かに関わらず、双方によって書かれた研究論文は、合意された当該研究領域の期待の範囲内にまとまっていると示唆される。

Within the field of genre studies (e.g., Swales, 2004), researchers
have attempted to provide a detailed picture of the rhetoricalstructure of research articles (RAs). The academic interest in thistext genre is understandable given the central role of RAs in disseminating and constructing scientific knowledge and in establishing personal andinstitutional reputations (Hyland, 2016). Descriptions of RAs are of tremendous practical importance as they form the basis of pedagogical materials
aimed at advanced L2 learners who must become proficient readers and,in many cases, producers of research. Genre studies in this area can also be
helpful to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instructors, who are often
unfamiliar with discipline-specific and culture-specific rhetorical patterns.
For the purposes of this paper, RAs will be defined as reports of empirical research that have a conventional IMRD (introduction, method, results,
discussion) structure. Studies of RA introductions have largely employed
Swales’s Create a Research Space (CARS) model (1990, 2004), whichanalyzes introductions in terms of rhetorical “moves.” According to Swales(2004), moves are discoursal or rhetorical units that perform a coherent
communicative function in written or spoken discourse and are realized bya clause or, at the other extreme, a series of sentences. In the 1990 and later
versions of Swales’s model, Move 1 (M1) establishes an initial research territory, Move 2 (M2) describes a gap in the research that is to be addressedin the research paper, and Move 3 (M3) states how the paper will address
this gap. In his 2004 revision, Swales’s model incorporates the possibility of
iterating M1 and M2 sequences. The model also includes a series of “steps.”
The moves and steps in the 2004 version of Swales’s model that will be usedin the analysis in this paper are as follows:
Move 1: Establishing a territory (citations required)			via		 Topic generalization of increasing specificity
Move 2: Establishing a niche (citations possible)
			via		 Step 1a: Indicating a gap
			orMueller				

Step 1b: Adding to what is known

31

Step 2: (optional) Presenting positive justification

Move 3: Presenting the present work (citations possible)
			via		 Step 1: Announcing present research descriptively, purposively,				 or both
		 Step 2: Presenting research questions (RQs) or hypotheses
		 Step 3: Definitional clarifications
		 Step 4: Summarizing methods
		 Step 5: Announcing principal outcomes
		 Step 6: Stating the value of present research		 Step 7: Outlining the structure of the paper

In M3, Step 1 (S1) is said to be obligatory; Steps 2, 3, and 4 optional; andSteps 5, 6, and 7 probable in some fields and unlikely in others.
In the last three decades, extensive research has examined RA introductions. Much of this has been empirical research using either Swales’s 1990
or 2004 model to analyze a small corpus of texts (generally, between 20 and
60 texts for each level of the independent variable). One strand of this research has examined linguistic or rhetorical elements within introductions(e.g., Chang & Schleppegrell, 2011) sometimes with a particular focus on one
move (e.g., Shehzad, 2008). Another strand has examined practices within(e.g., Milagros del Saz Rubio, 2011) or between disciplines (e.g., Martín Martín & León Pérez, 2009) and subdisciplines (e.g., Atai & Habibie, 2009).
A third strand has compared introductions in RAs written in different
languages. One assumption motivating this cross-linguistic research is that
L2 writers, due to influence from L1 writing practices and culture, will often
produce texts that violate the expectations of native speaker readers (Kaplan, 1966). Many of these studies have compared Romance languages withEnglish (e.g., Hirano, 2009; Mur Dueñas, 2010) or Chinese with English (e.g.,Loi, 2010; Loi & Evans, 2010).
Although the main focus of cross-linguistic research has been on the differences in rhetorical practices within diverse L1 communities, some researchers have asked whether L2 writers alter their rhetorical practices to converge
with those of Anglophone academic communities. To answer this question
they have examined, in addition to texts produced by nonnative researchers

32

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

writing in their L1, texts by nonnative researchers writing in English. For example, Sheldon (2011) examined the texts produced by Spanish-L1 researchers writing in Spanish, Spanish-L1 researchers writing in English, and English-L1 researchers writing in English. She found that whereas Spanish RAs,
unlike their English counterparts, diverged from the CARS (2004) schema, theEnglish RAs written by Spanish writers showed greater convergence.
Employing a similar research design, Ochi (2004) analyzed 180 Japaneseauthored RAs from the fields of biology, medicine, and physics. Her corpus
consisted of 60 articles from each field, half in English and half in Japanese.
One strength of her study was the use of a large corpus, which was probably
representative because it consisted of RAs from a wide range of journals.
On the other hand, the analysis was very coarse-grained, consisting of sorting the introductions into three categories based on whether they strictly
adhered to Swales’s (1990) model, deviated from the model, or were missing key moves. For the most part, Ochi found few differences related to thelanguage of the text with the exception of the biology RAs, in which case thenumber of English RAs following the standard model was roughly doublethat of the Japanese RAs. It should be noted that Ochi’s study focused on
RAs written mostly in 1999, so the findings may not provide a fully accurate
picture of current rhetorical practices.
A general finding in previous studies is that in English RAs, M2 is generally common (e.g., Shehzad, 2008, found it in 94.6% of computer scienceRAs) and that according to some authors (e.g., Loi, 2010), within M2 English
writers tend to critique specific authors more often than do writers of otherlanguage groups. Lower use of M2 has been found for a number of languages
including Arabic (Alotaibi, 2013), Brazilian-Portuguese (Hirano, 2009),
Chinese (Loi, 2010), Korean (Lee, 2001), Spanish (Burgess, 1997; but cf.
Sheldon, 2011), Swedish (Fredrickson & Swales, 1994), and Thai (Jogthong,2001), whereas similar use of M2 has been reported in one study on Persian(Mahzari & Maftoon, 2007). In research that has compared non-English
RAs, English RAs written by the same L1 group and L1 English RAs (e.g., AlQahtani, 2006; Taylor & Chen, 1991), the nonnative writers often exhibited atendency to use M2 more when writing in English, but even so, to use it lessthan their English-L1 counterparts.
The omission of M2 has been explained in a number of ways, particularly
in terms of cultural factors. More collectivist cultures are said to place greater
emphasis on group harmony and avoidance of overt disagreements (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), and therefore M2 (especially, an explicit
M2S1a) may be avoided by writers from these cultures as it is indicativeMueller33

of an adversarial style of discourse (Belcher, 1997, 2009). In short, rhetorical moves that explicitly identify shortcomings of specific authors could beviewed within some cultures as an unacceptable affront to other membersof one’s academic community (Taylor & Chen, 1991). Echoing these views,
Loi and Evans (2010) specifically mention Confucian values (which havealso been influential in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam) as an explanation for
Chinese reticence to criticize specific authors. It may be contended that thisline of argument overlooks the diversity of the Confucian tradition, exaggerates its significance in understanding current Asian practices, and issomewhat odd when applied to M2, given the prevalence of direct criticism
of other authors within the Confucian tradition itself (see also Kubota, 1997;
McKinley, 2013; Ryan & Louie, 2007; Vandermensbrugghe, 2004). Anotherpossibility mentioned by Loi (2010) is that there is less competition in some
non-English academic communities and thus less pressure to carve out aunique research space through direct criticism. A third plausible explanation is that researchers in non-English environments may have less accessto sources and may also have only limited ability to read sources in English,
which is often the preferred language for academic publication.
Turning to the more general question of whether Asian authors adapt
to a new set of rhetorical practices after working in a Western academic
setting, the research is unclear. Many anecdotal accounts (e.g., Fox, 1994)
report that nonnative speakers find it difficult to adapt to English academic
expectations within their discipline. However, several qualitative studies
have suggested less difficulty. Cheng’s (2006) study of a Chinese graduate
student at a U.S. university reported that he had little difficulty in becoming
a consumer and producer of academic criticism. Shi (2003), in a study ofnine Western-trained TESOL professionals, found that the teachers adapted
to Western practices and even promoted these practices in their teaching ofboth English and Chinese writing after they returned to China. Casanave’s(1998) research on Japanese scholars returning to Japan also found thatthey were keenly aware of rhetorical differences.
To sum up the current state of research, at least two dozen articles havebeen written on cross-linguistic comparisons of RA introductions focusing on a wide range of languages. However, few English-language studies
have examined the structure of introductions in Japanese-authored RAs.
The current research makes a contribution to this area in four ways: (a)the examination of both Japanese articles and Japanese-authored articles
provides insights into whether nonnative authors’ rhetorical practices areprimarily shaped by conventions of the L1 or L2 academic community; (b)34JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017as Japan is within the Confucian cultural sphere of East Asia, the study helps
determine the plausibility of suggestions that East Asian rhetorical conventions diverge from Anglophone practices due to cultural values associatedwith conflict avoidance; and (c) by providing an up-to-date and fine-grained
cross-linguistic comparison, the study clarifies practices in applied linguistics and identifies potential areas of divergence between Japanese andEnglish speakers that may need to be highlighted in pedagogical materials
used in EAP courses targeting Japanese learners; and finally, (d) the analysis
extends previous research through an examination of moves and steps interms of occurrence and length, as well as cycling (i.e., recurrence of moves
and steps). The discussion section of the paper provides a review of the findings within the context of previous research and outlines possible factors
underlying the observed results as well as pedagogical implications.
The current research tested the following hypotheses regarding RAs written by English-L1 authors (E-RAs), RAs written in Japanese by Japanese
authors (J-RAs), and RAs written in English by Japanese authors (JE-RAs).
H1: The three subcorpora will differ in their use of M2, with more E-RAs
and fewer J-RAs containing M2.
H2: The three subcorpora will differ in the relative amount of text used torealize M2, with the E-RAs containing the longest M2s, the J-RAs theshortest M2s, and the JE-RAs at a middle position (i.e., with M2s shorter
than those of the E-RAs but longer than those of the J-RAs).
3
H : The three subcorpora will differ in terms of their use of critiques of
specific authors, with more E-RAs containing such critiques and fewer
J-RAs containing such critiques.
H4: There will be more cycling of moves in the J-RAs relative to the E-RAs
and JE-RAs.
H5: There will be more cycling of moves in the JE-RAs relative to the E-RAs.

MethodTo compare E-RAs, J-RAs, and JE-RAs, a corpus of 75 applied linguistics RAs,
25 from each group, was compiled. All the texts were peer-reviewed RAs
published during the 10-year period between 2005 and 2014. To ensurethat the RAs were representative and were not simply reflecting the idiosyncratic editorial policy of a particular journal, the articles were selected froma wide range of journals. The E-RAs (see Appendix A) came from 15 different journals, the J-RAs (see Appendix B) from 13 different journals, andMueller35

the JE-RAs (see Appendix C) from 17 different journals. To ensure greater
representativeness, the selection procedure stipulated that each author only
appeared as the lead author in one RA in each subcorpus. The E-RAs and
JE-RAs were selected from Google Scholar (<https://scholar.google.co.jp>),whereas the J-RAs were selected from the CiNii (<http://ci.nii.ac.jp/>)database. Only full-length RAs reporting empirical research were selected.
All of the J-RAs came from journals that were published in Japan, whereas
the E-RAs and JE-RAs came from journals published in English in Westerncountries. To control for the potentially confounding influence of different
publication dates across the corpora, selection procedures stipulated thatthe publication dates of RAs in each subcorpus must range from 2005 to2014 with a median of 2009. To measure the proportion of the introduction
devoted to each move and step, the lines in the introduction of each article
were counted and the percentage of space devoted to each move and stepwas calculated as a percentage of each RA’s introduction. Partial lines were
measured and were counted as a percentage of a full line depending on theirlength relative to full lines of the text.
During the coding process, there were several issues that had to be resolved. A preliminary issue when analyzing RA introductions is defining
where an introduction begins and ends. As just one example, one of the JERAs had an introduction section that also contained the entire description of
the method. This “Introduction” was followed by a section labeled “Results.”
Unconventional headings were less of an issue in the English RAs (the ERAs and JE-RAs) because many English-language journals require standard
IMRD labeling of RA sections. For the purposes of this study, the introduction was defined as the initial section of the paper that occurs prior to thesection of the paper detailing the method.
There were also some issues when coding M2. This move highlights gaps
in current knowledge that will be filled by the current research. In the English RAs, the move is often clearly marked with words such as few (e.g., “fewstudies have examined . . .”) or with contrasting statements, which are often
preceded by however. In some cases, a statement is only clearly identifiable
as M2 after the reader encounters M3 and realizes that the particular gap inknowledge highlighted earlier in the RA is being addressed by the study’s research. For the purposes of the current study, any explicit statement of a gap
in knowledge that was later addressed in M3 was regarded as part of M2.
The coding of M3 involved some minor issues, with M3S3 (definitional
clarifications; see Table 5 for a list of M3 steps) in particular presenting someconceptual difficulties. Definitions are often taken from previous sources

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 201736

and are often presented as accepted knowledge within a field, in whichcase the definition may quite naturally occur embedded within M1. In othercases, the definition may represent the author’s own formulation and clarification, and it may be more naturally presented as part of M3. Bunton (2002)
describes similar coding issues in his analysis of PhD theses. To complicate
matters even further, in many papers, the line between what should count asa definition and a discussion of key concepts associated with the topic (partof M1) is quite vague. In light of these issues, M3S3 may be regarded as an
ambiguous and problematic step within the current CARS model.
M3S4 (summarizing methods) also presents some coding issues. Identifying the method is generally straightforward: The method can be viewed
as the procedural means of answering the research question. Yet in someresearch, the theoretical framework and, in many cases, the individual categories used in the analysis, are the primary focus of this step. To provide amore fine-grained analysis of M3S4, in this paper I will identify introductory
sections that focus on procedures as M3S4a (summarizing methods), andsections that focus on clarification of theoretical frameworks, approaches,and categories as M3S4b (summarizing framework).

Results

All 75 RAs contained M1, which occurred as the initial move in all but oneof the E-RAs. Five JE-RAs and seven J-RAs began with a different move (usually M3). M1 is typically the longest move as it must introduce the topic anddiscuss the relevant literature. This was also true of the three subcorpora, inwhich M1 accounted for two-thirds of the introduction, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Proportion of Introduction Devoted to M1 (Establishing a
Territory) in the Three Subcorpora
E-RAs (n = 25)
M (SD)

67.8% (22.0%)

J-RAs (n = 25)
M (SD)

63.8% (22.9%)

JE-RAs (n = 25)
M (SD)

69.9% (21.4%)

Note. M1 = Move 1; E-RAs = research articles written by English-L1 authors; J-RAs =research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs = research articles
written in English by Japanese authors.

As shown in Table 2, M2 occurred in most of the RAs. The overall use of M2
in the three subcorpora is in line with that found for English-L1 RAs in previ-Mueller37

ous research. Atai and Habibie (2009), for example, in their analysis of 60
applied linguistics RAs, found that M2 occurred in 93% of the RAs, whereas
Sheldon (2011) found it in all 18 of the applied linguistics RAs in her study.
In the current study, M2S1a (indication of a gap to be filled) was the mostcommon step. The descriptive statistics show that more E-RAs contained acritique of a specific author. This requires some further explanation. In twoof these RAs, the authors were actually noting shortcomings in their own
previous research. In other instances, rhetorical devices often mitigated
the author’s criticism. One observed strategy was to put the criticism in a
new paragraph with a vague reference to the work discussed earlier in theliterature review. Many of the critiques, rather than finding actual fault withprevious authors, used gap statements that simply highlighted areas thathave yet to be explored. As shown in Table 2, roughly a fifth of the critiquesof previous researchers were softened through the addition of offsetting
praise placed either immediately before or after the critical comment (fora discussion of critique-mitigating strategies, see Hyland & Hyland, 2001).

Table 2. Occurrence of M2 (Establishing a Niche) in the Three Subcorpora

Move (step)

Occurrence (percentage of subcorpus)
E-RAs(n = 25)

J-RAs(n = 25)

JE-RAs(n = 25)M2

23 (92%)22 (88%)24 (96%)

Use of offsetting praise

2 (8%)

1 (4%)

1 (4%)

M2S1a (Indicating a gap)

Critique of specific author(s)M2S1b (Adding to what is
known)

M2S2 (Positive justification)

18 (72%)10 (40%)3 (12%)

11 (44%)22 (88%)7 (28%)
1 (4%)

8 (32%)

22 (88%)5 (20%)
1 (4%)

11 (44%)Note. M2 = Move 2; S1 = Step 1; S2 = Step 2; E-RAs = research articles written by
English-L1 authors; J-RAs = research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs = research articles written in English by Japanese authors.

To determine whether there was a relationship between Corpus Type(with three levels, i.e., the E-RAs, J-RAs, and JE-RAs) and M2 occurrence(with two levels, i.e., occurrence and nonoccurrence), Fisher’s Exact Test
was conducted. The nonsignificant result (p = .865) showed a lack of sup-

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 201738

port for H1. A chi-square test of independence (see Table 3) was conducted
to determine whether there was a relationship between Corpus Type (withthree levels) and Critique of a specific author (with two levels, i.e., occurrence and nonoccurrence). The relation between these variables was nonsignificant at the .05 significance level, X2 (2, N = 75) = 2.44, p = .295. H3 wastherefore also not supported.

Table 3. Chi-Square Test on Relation Between Corpus Type andCritique of Specific Authors

Subcorpus
E-RAs
J-RAs

JE-RAsCount

Expected count
Count

Expected count
Count

Expected count

Critique of specific author

Occurrence
10

7.3
7

7.3
5

7.3

Nonoccurrence
15

17.7
18

17.7
20

17.7

Note. E-RAs = research articles written by English-L1 authors; J-RAs = research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs = research articles written in
English by Japanese authors.

Table 4 shows the proportion of the introduction devoted to M2 and M2
steps in the three sets of RAs. As can be seen, M2 accounts for roughly atenth of the introductions. Contrary to expectations, it is actually slightly
longer in the J-RAs. That said, there are few differences between the threesubcorpora.

Mueller

Table 4. Proportion of Introduction Devoted to M2 (Establishing a
Niche) in the Three Subcorpora
Move (step)M2 (Establishing aniche)

M2S1a (Indicating agap)
M2S1b (Adding towhat is known)
M2S2 (Positive
justification)

39

E-RAs (n = 25)

J-RAs (n = 25)

JE-RAs (n = 25)

6.2% (8.8%)

8.0% (8.1%)

5.6% (4.8%)

3.0% (6.0%)

5.4% (11.6%)

M (SD)

M (SD)

9.4% (11.3%) 13.5% (13.4%)
0.1% (0.4%)

0.2% (0.9%)

M (SD)

9.7% (9.1%)
0.0% (0.1%)
4.1% (8.8%)

Note. M2 = Move 2; S1 = Step 1; S2 = Step 2; E-RAs = research articles written by
English-L1 authors; J-RAs = research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs = research articles written in English by Japanese authors.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with Corpus Typeas the independent variable with three levels (E-RAs, J-RAs, and JE-RAs) andthe percentage of the introduction devoted to M2 as the dependent variable.
At an alpha of p = .05, the differences between the three subcorpora werenonsignificant, F(2,72) = 1.0, p = .359. H2 thus did not receive support.
Table 5 shows the use of M3 in each subcorpus. As can be seen, all but
one paper contained M3. The one JE-RA that omitted M3 contained a single
sentence in the introduction stating the aims of the research (equivalent toM3S1) at the beginning of the paper’s method section. Regarding the M3
steps, virtually all the papers described the current research (M3S1).

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 201740

Table 5. Occurrence of M3 (Presenting the Present Work) in the Three
Subcorpora
Move (step)

M3 (Presenting thepresent work)

M3S1 (Announcing
research)

M3S2 (RQs/hypotheses)
RQs (Researchquestions)Hypotheses

M3S3 (Definitional
clarifications)

M3S4a (Summarizing methods)

M3S4b (Summarizing framework)
M3S5 (Announcing
outcomes)

M3S6 (Stating valueof research)
M3S7 (Outlining
structure of paper)

Occurrence (Percentage of subcorpus)

E-RAs (n = 25)

J-RAs (n = 25)

JE-RAs (n = 25)

24 (96%)24 (96%)25 (100%)

25 (100%)
15 (60%)10 (40%)6 (24%)
5 (20%)
7 (28%)
5 (20%)
2 (8%)

4 (16%)
4 (16%)

25 (100%)
6 (24%)
5 (20%)
1 (4%)

8 (32%)
4 (16%)
7 (28%)
1 (4%)

4 (16%)
5 (20%)

24 (96%)14 (56%)
13 (52%)
1 (4%)

7 (28%)
3 (12%)
5 (20%)
1 (4%)

4 (16%)
3 (12%)

Note. M3 = Move 3; S1 = Step 1; S2 = Step 2; S3 = Step 3; S4 = Step 4; S5 = Step 5; S6 =Step 6; S7 = Step 7; E-RAs = research articles written by English-L1 authors; J-RAs =research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs = research articles
written in English by Japanese authors.

One of the more salient differences between the subcorpora involved thepresentation of research questions and hypotheses (M3S2). This step occurred in over half of the English-language RAs (in both the E-RAs and JE-RAs)
but occurred in only a quarter of the J-RAs, suggesting a potential difference
in disciplinary expectations within the Anglophone and Japanese academicMueller

41

communities. To test whether this difference was statistically significant, achi-square test of independence was conducted (see Table 6) with Corpus
Type as one factor with three levels and the occurrence of M3S2 as the otherfactor with two levels (occurrence and nonoccurrence). The test found thatthe relation between the variables (i.e., Corpus Type and M3S2 occurrence)
was significant at the .05 significance level X2 (2, N = 75) = 7.82, p = .020.

Table 6. Chi Square Test on Relation Between Corpus Type andOccurrence of M3S2

Subcorpus
E-RAs
J-RAs

JE-RAsCount

Expected count
Count

Expected count
Count

Expected count

M3S2 (RQs/hypotheses)

Occurrence

Nonoccurrence

6

19

15

11.7
11.7
14

11.7

10

13.3
13.3
11

13.3

Note. M3 = Move 3; S2 = Step 2; E-RAs = research articles written by English-L1 authors; J-RAs = research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs =research articles written in English by Japanese authors.

Both M3S3 (definitions) and M3S4 (summary of methods) occurred inapproximately one quarter of the RAs in all three subcorpora. M3S5 (announcing main outcomes) virtually never occurred, suggesting that this is
not a standard step in applied linguistics. M3S6 (stating the value of thepresent paper) was also rare, reflecting perhaps the fact that the value ofmuch applied linguistic research is obvious to the readers. M3S7 (outlining
the structure of the paper) was also rare, likely reflecting the fact that theRAs usually had standard IMRD labels for sections that are in fact requiredin most applied linguistics journals. Because applied linguistics readers arefamiliar with the IMRD structure, writers probably feel less need to explain
the structure of their papers.
Turning to the amount of text devoted to M3 and M3 steps (see Table 7),
the three subcorpora show many similarities. However, the E-RAs devoted
less space to describing the present research (M3S1) and more space todescribing current methods (M3S4). The low occurrence and short length

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 201742

of Steps 5, 6, and 7 suggest that these steps are not so common in applied
linguistics RA introductions (cf. Shehzad, 2010).

Table 7. Proportion of Introduction Devoted to M3 (Presenting PresentWork) in the Three Subcorpora
Move (step)

E-RAs (n = 25)

J-RAs (n = 25)

JE-RAs (n = 25)

4.8% (4.1%)

10.6% (7.6%)

8.3% (6.7%)

2.8% (6.8%)

3.4% (7.8%)

0.6% (1.3%)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M3 (Presenting
present work)

22.8% (21.5%) 22.7% (15.7%) 20.4% (20.3%)

M3S2 (RQs and/or
hypotheses)

3.2% (3.8%)

M3S1 (Announcing
research)
M3S3 (Definitional
clarifications)

M3S4a (Summarizing methods)

M3S4b (Summarizing framework)
M3S5 (Announcing
outcomes)

M3S6 (Stating valueof research)
M3S7 (Outlining
paper’s structure)

2.3% (5.5%)

8.6% (21.0%)
0.6% (1.7%)
0.2% (0.6%)
0.3% (0.7%)

1.0% (2.6%)
3.2% (9.1%)
3.0% (8.2%)
0.1% (0.7%)
0.3% (0.8%)
1.0% (2.6%)

2.1% (2.4%)
1.6% (5.2%)

7.0% (17.1%)
0.1% (0.4%)
0.4% (1.0%)
0.3% (0.9%)

Note. M3 = Move 3; S1 = Step 1; S2 = Step 2; S3 = Step 3; S4 = Step 4; S5 = Step 5; S6 =Step 6; S7 = Step 7; E-RAs = research articles written by English-L1 authors; J-RAs =research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs = research articles
written in English by Japanese authors.

When writing an introduction, writers face an inherent dilemma. If eachmove appears only once in the typical CARS model sequence with the longM1 appearing first, the reader must go through a significant portion of theintroduction without a clear sense of the specific objectives of the research.
One solution for writers is to cycle the moves so that a more general over-Mueller

43

view of the paper is provided initially with moves and steps repeated lateras the paper’s focus narrows. This strategy of cycling moves, generally asa telescoping strategy to proceed from the general to the specific, was employed in all three subcorpora as can be seen in Table 8. In the table, thetotal number of move tokens represents the number of moves that are preceded, followed, or both by a different move. For example, an introduction inwhich M3 occurred first and was followed by M1, M2, and then a recurring
M3 would be said to have a total of four move tokens. The total step tokens
likewise represent the number of steps preceded, followed, or both by a different step.
Although there was considerable variation, the initial move was almost
always M1 and the final move M3. The 2004 CARS model incorporates theidea of cycling M1 and M2, but many papers also included an early M3 informing the reader of the paper’s general aim, which was then restated in
more detail at the end of the introduction.

Table 8. Amount of Cycling in the Three Subcorpora (Total Tokens
Including Recurring)Move or step
Move tokens
Step tokens

E-RAs (n = 25)

J-RAs (n = 25)

JE-RAs (n = 25)

9.7 (3.4)

9.8 (5.5)

9.0 (4.8)

M (SD)

8.0 (3.8)

M (SD)

8.4 (4.9)

M (SD)

7.0 (3.9)

Note. E-RAs = research articles written by English-L1 authors; J-RAs = research articles written in Japanese by Japanese authors; JE-RAs = research articles written in
English by Japanese authors.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the differences in the number of move tokens in the three subcorpora. Analysis revealed that at an alphalevel of p = .05, the differences between the subcorpora were nonsignificant,F(2,72) = 0.7, p = .507. Another one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine
the differences in the number of step tokens. Again, analysis revealed thatat an alpha level of p = .05, the differences between the subcorpora werenonsignificant, F(2,72) = 0.2, p = .807. H4 and H5 were thus unsupported.

Discussion

Viewed broadly, this study suggests that Japanese scholars writing in both
Japanese and English currently structure RA introductions in applied lin-

44

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

guistics in much the same way as their English-L1 counterparts. The research revealed only minor differences between the three subcorpora, suchas the greater tendency for both English-L1 authors and Japanese authors
writing in English (relative to Japanese authors writing in Japanese) to
explicitly state research questions and hypotheses. Sheldon (2011), in an
examination of applied linguistics RAs, similarly found greater use of M3S2
among English-L1 writers, but in her study, Spanish authors used M3S2 lessin both Spanish and English RAs. In the current study, another minor difference between the subcorpora was that the Japanese-authored RAs showed agreater tendency to begin the introduction with M3 or occasionally with M2.
It could be that Japanese writers, who have often undergone intensive training in English essay writing, are influenced by admonitions in pedagogicalmaterials regarding the importance of stating one’s position “early on in thepaper” (for a typical example, see Weida & Stolley, 2013).
In earlier contrastive rhetoric research, there was speculation that Japanese writers of academic English might be heavily influenced by Japaneserhetorical structures, particularly the ki-sho-ten-ketsu (introduction, development, abrupt topic shift, and conclusion) pattern (Hinds, 1983). Later
researchers (e.g., Kubota, 1997) have questioned this assumption. Althoughsome more recent research written in the past two decades (e.g., Oi, 1999)
has continued to find different rhetorical organization in the argumentation
patterns of native English and native Japanese writers, other research (e.g.,
Hirose, 2003) has identified many similarities. The current study suggeststhat at least for the applied linguistics field and the area of introductions,academic writing styles are converging. Other researchers (e.g., Kowalski,
2014, examining Polish RAs in linguistics) have also reported a trend for
non-Anglophone writing to converge toward English RA rhetorical norms.
A key finding in previous research was that M2 was often missing fromthe introductions of many non-English RAs. The current research finds noevidence for this in Japanese. It has also been said that non-English writers,
especially Asian writers, tend to avoid critiquing specific authors in M2. The
current study suggests that this avoidance is, in fact, the norm in applied
linguistics for both Japanese authors writing in either Japanese or English
and for English-L1 authors. In fact, authors in all three subcorpora generally avoided the critiquing of specific authors, and even when they put forthcritical remarks, they employed a wide range of stylistic devices to downplay
the face-threatening nature of their critiques. Generally speaking, critiquesof specific authors were mitigated by one or more of the following strategies: (a) offsetting of the critique with praise, for example, by noting how

Mueller45

the critiqued author’s contribution spurred progress in the field; (b) mentioning outstanding questions instead of directly focusing on shortcomings
in previous work; (c) including critiques of one’s own previous research;(d) distancing the critique of the author’s idea from the actual mention of
the author earlier in the paper; and (e) diffusing the personal nature of thecritique by critiquing more than one author or by stating that the critiquedauthors are examples of an undesirable trend associated with multiple authors in previous research.
One of the more unexpected findings in the current study was the prevalence of the cycling of moves. In this respect, the findings differ in some important ways from those of Ochi (2004), who found less use of cycling. Thismay be related to the disciplines investigated (in the Ochi study, biology,
medicine, and physics). The RAs analyzed in Ochi’s study were publishedat an earlier time, but it seems unlikely that greater cycling in the current
study reflects changes in rhetorical practices among Japanese writers overthe course of a single decade.
One factor that may explain the homogeneity in introductions across thethree subcorpora is the nature of applied linguistics. Many of the Japanesescholars writing in Japanese were probably trained in English-speaking
countries. Even if educated in Japan, much of the key literature in the fieldis written in English, so these scholars’ reading of RAs in graduate school
would have included heavy exposure to RAs written in English. For thisreason, caution is warranted when generalizing these findings to Japaneseauthored RAs in other disciplines.
The results have some clear pedagogical implications. First and foremost,the occasionally encountered advice that nonnative students learning to write
about research in English must overcome their qualms about harshly criticizing previous researchers would appear to be misguided. The current researchsuggests, at the very least, that harsh critiques are not common in some disciplines. More importantly, students who venture to offer critical comments
must be introduced to the diverse and subtle rhetorical means used to soften
the tone of their critiques. The use of offsetting praise is one such strategy thatis easy to convey to students. Other, more indirect strategies, such as directingof criticism at a tendency in the research may be more difficult to teach. Evenso, instructors focusing on English research writing may want to do more to
make students aware of some of these stylistic options.
The research also suggests that at least for Japanese students, the greatest obstacle to mastering English research writing might not be interference
from L1 rhetorical practices. If this is the case, pedagogy, instead of focusing

46

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

predominantly on cultural differences, may more fruitfully draw attention
to rhetorical structures in research writing and on how these structures are
realized linguistically in the L2 within specific disciplines (for an example
focusing on M2 in management, see Lim, 2012). In light of the considerable variation across disciplines observed in previous research, instruction
aimed at students entering different fields may also need to introduce someof the abstract concepts associated with genre analysis, which students canthen use as they examine and reflect on rhetorical practices in their own
field. When introducing research writing to homogeneous classes of students entering the same discipline, instruction and pedagogical materials
should ideally be more closely tailored to the specific practices of the discipline (for an example, see the description of M2 in discrete mathematics in
Moghaddasi & Graves, 2017).
The current research has a number of limitations. The tallying of rhetorical features is likely to miss some of the subtle differences among thesubcorpora. In some cases, such as the adoption of an adversarial stancetoward previous researchers, qualitative assessments of the stylistic devices
employed by writers may yield more insights than the quantitative measures used in the present study. Furthermore, an analysis of written products
cannot provide direct insights into the decision processes of writers. It couldbe, for example, that nonnative writers modify their texts significantly basedon feedback from native proofreaders and article reviewers.
Future research needs to address several remaining issues. At the moregeneral level, decades of cross-linguistic comparisons and examination of
specific disciplines have produced the needed groundwork for more generaldescriptions of RA introductions in a number of fields. Broad comparisonsof findings are needed to establish which variables (e.g., discipline, languageof the text, individual, and idiosyncratic differences) are more predictive ofrhetorical differences (see Dahl, 2004). Moreover, because cycling of moves isa prevalent strategy in many introductions, more research needs to examineand classify such strategies with attention to the purposes of cycling within
texts. At the same time, more research needs to be conducted on the learning
processes associated with rhetorical structures in writing along with related
research on the effectiveness of various pedagogical interventions. Finally,
caution is warranted when making blanket characterizations of Asian culturalvalues and the way these values influence writing (Kubota, 1997). Academic
research occurs within a dynamic international setting in which collaborationand interaction are the norm, so we may expect to witness increasing convergence in the practices of academic writers in the future.

Mueller

47

Charles M. Mueller teaches second language acquisition at Fuji Women’s
University. His research has focused on usage-based pedagogical approaches, collocations, and English for academic purposes.

References

Al-Qahtani, A. (2006). A contrastive rhetoric study of Arabic and English research
article introductions (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3211648)
Alotaibi, H. (2013). Research article abstracts and introductions: A comparative
genre-based study of Arabic and English in the fields of educational psychology
and sociology (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3595269)

Atai, M. R., & Habibie, P. (2009). Exploring sub-disciplinary variations and genericstructure of applied linguistic research article introductions using CARS model.
The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 26-51.

Belcher, D. D. (1997). An argument for non-adversarial argumentation: On therelevance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90003-5
Belcher, D. D. (2009). How research space is created in a diverse research world.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 221-234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.08.001
Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in PhD thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew(Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57-75). London, UK: Longman.

Burgess, S. (1997). Discourse variation across culture: A genre analysis study on writing on linguistics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading, UK.

Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journalof Second Language Writing, 7, 175-203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90012-1
Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance inacademic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in thesocial sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 140-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005
Cheng, A. (2006). Analyzing and enacting academic criticism: The case of an L2
graduate learner of academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15,279-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.002

48

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national
culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004

Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana,
IL: NCTE.

Fredrickson, K., & Swales, J. M. (1994). Competition and discourse community:
Introductions from Nysvenka studies. In B. Gunnarson, B. Nordberg, & P. Linell(Eds.), Text and talk in professional contexts (pp. 103-136). Uppsala, Sweden:
Uppsala University.
Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text, 3, 183-195.
https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1983.3.2.183

Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes:
A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for SpecificPurposes, 28, 240-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001

Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12,
181-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00015-8
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written
feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00038-8

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction ofknowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Jogthong, C. (2001). Research article introductions in Thai: Genre analysis ofacademic writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University,
Morgantown.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
Learning, 16, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
Kowalski, G. (2014). Positive self-evaluation and negative other-evaluation in NSs’and NNSs’ scientific discourse. In A. Łyda & K. Warchał (Eds.), Occupying niches:Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp.
47-67). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Kubota, R. (1997). A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse:
Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication, 14, 460-480.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088397014004002
Lee, S. (2001). A contrastive rhetoric study of Korean and English research paper
introductions (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3017142)

Mueller
Lim, J. M.-H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based
investigation into management researchers’ rhetorical steps and linguistic
mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 229-245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002

49

Loi, C. K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 267-279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.004
Loi, C. K., & Evans, M. S. (2010). Cultural differences in the organization of research
article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English andChinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2814-2825.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.010
Mahzari, A., & Maftoon, P. (2007). A contrastive study of the introduction sectionof English and Persian medical research articles. Iranian Journal of Language
Studies, 1(3), 201-214.

Martín Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. K. (2009). Promotional strategies in research
article introductions: An interlinguistic and cross-disciplinary genre analysis.
Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 59, 73-87.

McKinley, J. (2013). Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal, 44, 195-208.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688213488386
Milagros del Saz Rubio, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure
and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field ofagricultural sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 258-271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002
Moghaddasi, S., & Graves, H. A. B. (2017). “Since Hadwiger’s conjection … is stillopen”: Establishing a niche for research in discrete mathematics research
article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 69-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.003

Mur Dueñas, P. (2010). A contrastive analysis of research article introductions inEnglish and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 61, 119-133.

Ochi, K. (2004). The organization of introductions in Japanese academic research
papers in the natural sciences: A comparison between articles written in
Japanese and English. JACET Bulletin, 38, 19-32.

Oi, K. (1999). Comparison of argumentative styles: Japanese college students vs.
America college students: An analysis using the Toulmin Model. JACET Bulletin,
30, 85-102.

50

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism
and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3
Ryan, J., & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy? ‘Western’ and ‘Confucian’ conceptsof scholarship and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39, 404-417.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00347.x
Shehzad, W. (2008). Move two: Establishing a niche. Ibérica, 15, 25-49.

Shehzad, W. (2010). Announcement of the principal findings and value addition incomputer science research papers. Ibérica, 19, 97-118.
Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English
L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 10, 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004
Shi, L. (2003). Writing in two cultures: Chinese professors return from the West.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 369-391.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.3.369
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and application. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827

Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied
Linguistics, 12, 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.3.319

Vandermensbrugghe, J. (2004). The unbearable vagueness of critical thinking in thecontext of the Anglo-Saxonisation of education. International Education Journal,
5, 417-422.
Weida, S., & Stolley, K. (2013). Developing strong thesis statements. The Purdue
online writing lab. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
resource/588/01/

Appendix A
List of Articles in the English Subcorpus (E-RAs)

Allen, H. W. (2010). Interactive contact as linguistic affordance during short-term study
abroad: Myth or reality? Journal of Studies in International Education, 19, 452-470.
Belcher, D. (2009). How research space is created in a diverse research world.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 221-234.

Bell, N. D. (2012). Comparing playful and nonplayful incidental attention to form.
Language Learning, 62, 236-265.

Mueller
Cross, J. (2014). Promoting autonomous listening to podcasts: A case study.
Language Teaching Research, 18, 8-32.

51

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing
quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66-79.
Eckman, F. R., & Iverson, G. (2012). The role of native language phonology in the
production of L2 contrasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 67-92.

Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention.
TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273-293.
Gardner, D. I., & Davies, M. (2011). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpusbased analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 339-359.

Garner, J. R. (2013). The use of linking adverbials in academic essays by non-native
writers: How data-driven learning can help. CALICO Journal, 30, 410-422.
Hammond, K. (2006). More than a game: A critical discourse analysis of a racialinequality exercise in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 545-571.

Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult’s second language negation.
Language Learning, 63, 463-498.
James, M. A. (2006). Transfer of learning from a university content-based EAP
course. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 783-806.

Jones, L. C. (2006). Effects of collaboration and multimedia annotations on vocabulary learning and listening comprehension. CALICO Journal, 24, 33-58.
Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A
teacher’s choices. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 31-50.

Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy
in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 590-619.

Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT
Journal, 61, 311-320.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 27, 405-430.

McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’
production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,
179-207.

Moyer, A. (2011). An investigation of experience in L2 phonology: Does quality matter
more than quantity? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67, 191-216.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second
language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829-856.

52

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning:
Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of taskdifficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45,
193-213.

Rothman, J. (2008). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences?: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41,
951-973.

Thomson, R. I. (2011). Computer assisted pronunciation training: Targeting second
language vowel perception improves pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28, 744-765.
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 79-95.
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 27, 269-304.

Appendix B
List of Articles in the Japanese Subcorpus (J-RAs)

Fujita, Y. (2007). 日本人学生とのやり取りを通した作文授業の影響 ―PAC分析による学習者理解 [Exchanging Japanese e-mails with Japanese university students:
Understanding language learners through personal attitude construct analysis].
JALT Journal, 29, 81-97.
Fukazawa, S., Ito, M., Yamauchi, Y., & Morinaga, K. (2013). 高等学校英語授業における 教師の母語使用に関する研究：大学生の回想的回答から [A study of senior highschool teachers’ L1 use in the English language classroom in Japan: From retrospective reports by university students]. 『学校教育実践学研究』, 19, 195-203.

Goto, Y. (2014). 英語語彙の意味範囲に関する不十分な理解とその修正 [How canJapanese university students’ incorrect understanding of the scope of meaningof some English verbs be rectified?]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology,
62, 1-12.
Hiromori, T., & Tanaka, H. (2006). 英語学習における動機づけを高める授業実践：自己決定理論の視点から [Instructional intervention on motivating English learners:
The self-determination theory viewpoint]. Language Education and Technology,
43, 111-126.
Ijuin, I., & Takahashi, K. (2012). 日本・韓国・台湾の大学生による日本語意見文 の構造的特徴－「主張」に着目して－ [Structural features of Japanese opinion
statements of Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese students: Focusing on claims].
Journal for Japanese Studies, 2, 1-16.

Mueller

53

Ishii, R. (2006). 図表の呈示及び完成が第二言語学習者の説明文読解に及ぼす影響：中級後半レベルの成人日本語学習者の場合 [The impact of graphic organizers oncomprehension of explanations by intermediate level adult learners of Japanese
as a second language]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 498-508.
Katagiri, J. (2014). JF 講座受講生のポートフォリオに対する態度変化の過程－受講生
インタビューの分析から－[The process of attitudinal change toward JF lecture
portfolios: From interviews with students].『日本語教育紀要』, 10, 7-22.

Kikuchi, K., & Nakayama, K. (2006). 外国映画のリスニングが中学生の学習意欲に 及ぼす影響 [Listening to English movies: Effects on junior high school students’
intrinsic interest in learning English]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 254-264.

Kitani, N., & Maeda, T. (2006). 外国人日本語教師と高校生ボランティアの協働による 素材収集型交流活動の意義―高校生ボランティアの気づきに注目して― [The significance of foreign teachers of Japanese and high school volunteers’ materials
selection exchange activities: Focusing on high school volunteers’ noticing]. 『日本語教育紀要』, 2, 31-47.

Kurokawa, A., & Suzuki, J. (2011). 日本人中学生のスピーキング力育成に 対するTPRの有効性に関する実証的研究 [An empirical study of the effectiveness of TPR for
the development of Japanese junior high school students’ speaking ability]. LET
Kansai Branch Research Collection, 13, 93-111.
Maeda, H. (2008). WBTを援用した授業で成功した学習者・成功しなかった学習者[Successful learners and unsuccessful learners in classroom teaching aided by
web-based training]. ARELE : Annual Review of English Language Education in
Japan, 19, 253-262.

Matsunuma, M. (2009). 受動態の学習における学習者の不十分な知識とその修正 [Howcan we rectify Japanese students’ insufficient knowledge about the passive
voice in English?]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 454-465.
Nakayama, A. (2005). 日本人大学生の英語学習における目標志向性と学習観 および
学習方略の関係のモデル化とその検討 [Testing a hypothesized model of English
language learning: Japanese university students’ goal orientation, beliefs, andlearning strategies]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 320-330.

Nishihara, T. (2008). 英詩の解釈プロセスにおける英語学習者の言語形式への 気づきの
生起 [Awareness of English language learners’ linguistic form in the interpretive
process of English poetry]. LET Kansai Branch Research Collection, 12, 21-35.
Nishimura, F. (2007). 断りに用いられる言い訳の日英対照分析 [Excuses offered forrefusals in Japanese and English]. 『世界の日本語教育』, 17, 93-112.

54

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Nishino, T. (2011). コミ ュニカティ ブ ・ アプローチに関する日本人高校英語教師の 信条と実践 [Japanese high school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding
communicative language teaching]. JALT Journal, 33, 131-155.

Oyama, Y. (2011). 関係代名詞を含む英文の処理時間と英語リスニング 熟達度の関係の検討 [Japanese learners’ processing time for reading English relative clauses
analyzed in relation to their English proficiency]. The Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 28, 150-157.
Sakai, H., & Wada, J. (2012). 中学校英語教科書のジャ ンル ・ テキス トタイプ分析[A genre/text-type analysis of junior high school textbooks of English]. JALT
Journal, 34, 209-238.

Sakurai, Y. (2012). 母語話者教員と非母語話者教員に対する学習者の「よい教師」像―エ
ジプト人日本語学習者の場合 [Native and non-native “good teachers” for Egyptian
learners of Japanese language]. Journal for Japanese Studies, 2, 17-32.
Shibasaki, H. (2005). 第 二言語 のテキス ト理解 要 因 としての背景知識 と語彙 知識[Background and vocabulary knowledge as a factor for text comprehension insecond language]. Second Language, 4, 51-73.

Shirahata, T. (2013). 否定証拠を中心とした明示的英文法指導の効果検証：予備的調査[Effects of negative evidence on the acquisition of English subjects by Japanese
EFL learners: A preliminary study]. Studies in Subject Development 『教科開発学
論集』, 1, 163-172.

Terasawa, T., Yoshida, T., & Ohta, N. (2008). 英単語学習における自覚できない 学習段階の検出：長期に連続する日常の場へ実験法を展開する [Unconscious stage of learning in the acquisition of a second language: Experimental designs in long-term
everyday learning situations]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 56,
510-522.
Usukura, M., & Osaki, S. (2008). 学習内容の定着を目指した CD-ROM英語教材の 活用
ー英語のリメディアル教育への取り組みー [An effective way of using self-learning
CD-ROM materials outside the classroom: An attempt in developmental English
education for university students]. Journal of Multimedia Aided Education
Research, 5(1), 77-86.

Wakabayashi, S., Fukuda, K., Bannai, M., & Asaoka, S. (2007). 日本語話者 の英語の3単
現の-sに 対す る敏感度：事象 関連電位 デー タに基づ く考察 [Japanese speakers’
sensitivity to third person singular -s in English: Arguments based on ERP data].
Second Language, 6, 19-46.

Mueller

55

Yaegashi, R., Onuma, G., Sasaki, R., Kunihiro, Y., Miyoshi, T., & Niitu, Y. (2010). 外国人
留学生を対象とした日本語字幕付き講義コンテンツの開発と開発したコンテンツによる遠隔講義の有効性 [How to make distance learning for non-native students

more effective by annexing captions to lectures]. Journal of Multimedia Education Research, 7I(1), 1-10.

Appendix C: List of Articles in the Japanese-Authored English
Subcorpus (JE-RAs)

Fujii, N. (2005). Learning from learner discourse: Rethinking grammar instruction.
Japanese Language and Literature, 39, 291-337.

Hirai, A., & Koizumi, R. (2009). Development of a practical speaking test with a positive impact on learning using a story retelling technique. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 6, 151-167.
Hiromori, T. (2009). A process model of L2 learners’ motivation: From the perspectives of general tendency and individual differences. System, 37, 313-321.

Ikeda, K. (2011). Enriching interactional space nonverbally: Microanalysis ofteachers’ performance in JFL classrooms. Japanese Language and Literature, 45,
195-226.
Kamimura, T. (2014). Citation behaviors observed in Japanese EFL students’argumentative writing. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics,
18(1), 85-101.
Kasahara, K. (2011). The effect of known-and-unknown word combinations on
intentional vocabulary learning. System, 39, 491-499.

Mizumoto, A. (2013). Enhancing self-efficacy in vocabulary learning: A self-regulated learning approach. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 15-24.
Nakanishi, T., & Ueda, A. (2011). Extensive reading and the effect of shadowing.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 1-16.
Nakata, T. (2011). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary learning ina paired-associate paradigm: A critical investigation of flashcard software.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 17-38.

Ojima, S., Nakata, H., & Kakigi, R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning
after childhood: Effects of proficiency. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17,1212-1228.
Okamura, A. (2006). Two types of strategies used by Japanese scientists, whenwriting research articles in English. System, 34, 68-79.

56

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Saito, A. (2012). Is English our lingua franca or the native speaker’s property? The
native speaker orientation among middle school students in Japan. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 3, 1071-1081.
Saito, K. (2015). Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation
development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 276-300.

Sakurai, Y. (2012). Learners’ perceptions on “good” foreign language teachers:
Quantitative analysis between native and non-native teachers. Electronic Journalof Foreign Language Teaching, 9, 46-66.
Sasaki, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). EFL students’ vocabulary learning in NS-NNS
e-mail interactions: Do they learn new words by imitation? ReCALL, 22, 70-82.

Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multipledata analysis. Modern Language Journal, 91, 602-620.

Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech production. Applied Linguistics, 28,
113-135.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A
qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System,
33, 437-461.
Takeuchi, O., Ikeda, M., & Mizumoto, A. (2012). Reading aloud activity in L2 andcerebral activation. RELC Journal, 42, 151-167.

Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing
on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks.
System, 34, 601-614.
Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context:
The learning of the English copula be before and after the introduction of theauxiliary be. Language Teaching Research, 11, 11-30.

Tokunaga, M. (2014). Exploring metalinguistic knowledge of low to intermediate
proficiency EFL students in Japan. SAGE Open, 4(4), 1-10.

Tono, Y. (2013). Automatic extraction of L2 criterial lexico-grammatical features
across pseudo-longitudinal learner corpora: Using edit distance and variabilitybased neighbor clustering. EUROSLA Monograph Series, 2, 149-176.
Yamashita, J. (2014). Effects of instruction on yes-no responses to L2 collocations.
Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 31-37.

Yoshida, R. (2013). ‘Learners’ self-concept and use of the target language in foreign
language classroom. System, 41, 935-951.

Book Reviews
Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom.
Masayuki Teranishi, Yoshifumi Saito, and Katie Wales (Eds.).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. xxi + 329 pp.
Reviewed by
Scott Bean
South Seattle College

Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom is a volume of articles on the subject of using literature in EFL teaching. Editors Teranishi,
Saito, and Wales list in the Introduction the various themes of the collection: the justification of using literature (also referred to as “literary texts”)
to teach EFL, the influence of multimedia and technology, and the use of
noncanonical texts (graded readers, postmodernist texts, and pop song
lyrics). Many of the contributors introduce their articles by acknowledging
the traditional role of literature in language teaching (associated with thegrammar-translation method, as Kyoko Kuze notes in Chapter 12), and its
subsequent decline in popularity with the advent of communicative approaches and the use of authentic texts that focus more on practical, everyday English. However, several authors note the reemergence of literature in
recent years in the EFL classroom, perhaps because many teachers would
agree with Kazuko Takahashi’s assertion in Chapter 2 that “literary works
are authentic materials for L2 learning” (p. 37).
The book contains 19 chapters and is divided into two broad themes. The
first six chapters present current issues and approaches, and the remaining
13 articles focus on more specific classroom activities under the heading of“Empirical and Case Studies.” The merits of these activities are explained
through analysis of achievement tests, student written work (such asreports, essays, and translations), questionnaires and surveys, student reflections, and interviews. Fourteen of the articles are written by Japanesecontributors, and the majority of the investigations are carried out in JapaJALT Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, May 2017

57

58

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

nese educational contexts, but many of the topics—such as stylistics, creative writing, materials, testing, discussion groups, and teacher training—are
relevant for a global audience.
Teranishi (Chapter 11) outlines the different purposes of language instructors who use literature. Some teachers may wish to emphasize the linguistic
value of studying literary texts, such as analysis of vocabulary, idioms, andgrammar (“language skills”). Other teachers may wish to use literature moreas a means of developing students’ creativity and critical thinking (“literaryskills”). Teranishi argues that these two approaches can naturally reinforce
each other, and this collection contains articles that will appeal to teachers
who adopt either or both of these approaches.
On the linguistic side, a fair number of the authors focus on the role ofstylistics in the study of literary language. Teranishi in Chapter 11 encourages the use of original (authentic) English texts (such as excerpts from canonical novels), rather than retold (or graded) versions, to appreciate fully
the “stylistic, narrative and literary devices” (p. 169) of the text. Teachers ofadvanced students of literature and linguistics may be inspired to focus onconceptual metaphors after reading Michael Burke’s (Chapter 5) analysisof metaphors in poetry, idioms, and drama. Tetsuko Nakamura’s stylistic
analysis (Chapter 10) of indirect speech and thought in English literaturecompared to Japanese translations will help teachers present this English
grammar and style to their Japanese students with the goal of having students produce their own indirect speech and thought in English.
Bridging the two approaches, Geoff Hall (Chapter 1) and Saito (Chapter 4)both point out the importance of studying stylistics as preparation for creative writing. Similarly, Kuze (Chapter 12) focuses on the use of short stories
as inspiration for creative writing in a composition course. In Chapter 6,
Gillian Lazar brings together the language and literary camps by suggesting
the use of postmodernist picture books to develop linguistic knowledge andcultural awareness in students as well as to elicit their critical responses.
Some of the later chapters focus on activities that are in some respects
more on the literary side. In particular, the use of book clubs (Chapter 16),
reading circles (Chapters 14 and 18), and a similar activity called “World
Café” introduced by Motoko Fukaya in Chapter 17 are cited as beneficial ineliciting more evaluative and critical responses from students.
These later chapters may also appeal to teachers who focus on reading
skills and discussion through extensive reading (ER). Proponents of ER programs that make use of graded readers will appreciate Fukaya’s conclusion(Chapter 17) that extensive reading of graded readers is good for increasing

Book Reviews

59

students’ reading speed and comprehension as well as Mark D. Sheehan’sconclusion (Chapter 18) that graded readers are effective in motivating students to read more in English and in increasing their confidence.
The fact that so many of the articles are from the perspective of Japanese teachers will be of interest to many native English-speaking teachers(NESTs). Although some NESTs may have the view that Japanese education
is focused on rote learning, Aiko Saito’s article (Chapter 3) on literature
education in the L1, which is to say in Japanese schools, challenges thisview. She points out that Japanese literature teachers encourage students toshare their interpretations with textual support, consider themes, imagine
themselves in the characters’ shoes, or even perform scenes in class. Suchapproaches often adopted by NESTs to teach literature in the L2 should
therefore already be familiar to Japanese students.
At the same time, some NESTs may be critical of certain practices described in this volume. As many of the articles reflect, Japanese teachers may
utilize translations in Japanese (Chapter 16), conduct lessons in Japanese(Chapter 11), have students discuss in Japanese (Chapters 7, 14, and 17),or allow students to produce written responses in Japanese (Chapter 7). Nishihara provides a rationale for these practices: “Answering [questions] inEnglish was often beyond their capabilities” (Chapter 7, p. 121). Conversely,
it is probably safe to assume that most NESTs, at least at the university level,
conduct lessons in English, have students read texts in English, discuss the
texts in English, and produce written assignments in English in accordancewith communicative approaches to teaching. Tomohide Ishihara and Akira
Ono (Chapter 9) compare the ability of students to recognize sentencesfrom literary texts after doing comprehension tasks versus doing translation tasks; some NESTs may wonder whether students’ ability to identify
sentences has the same value as other stylistic analyses.
Another criticism that could be made is that some of the contributors
make conclusions based on a small number of research subjects. For example, Marina Lambrou (Chapter 19) determines that microteaching in ateacher-training course helps with student confidence, based on the resultsof a questionnaire submitted by 10 students. Masako Nasu (Chapter 15) admits the shortcoming of small subject numbers in qualitative studies, suchas her interviews of 35 highly successful language learners; however, she interprets her results fairly and does not overstate the role of literature study
in the success of her interviewees. Similarly, Nakamura’s study (Chapter 10)
on teaching speech and thought presentation involved merely nine students.
Perhaps in accordance with this small number, and with mixed results, she

60

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

does not make sweeping conclusions. Despite the weakness of small subject
numbers in some of the studies, the contributors still provide readers with aplethora of ideas for their teaching, which may be the most important takeaway from the volume. It must also be recognized that other studies do havelarger sample sizes (such as the 141 students in Ishihara and Ono’s study).
One challenge in putting together an edited book is integrating the chapters based on a particular theme (Davis & Blossey, 2011). In this sense,
Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom is mostly successful.
With respect to the themes listed in the Introduction, the collection doesfeature noncanonical literary texts to a great degree (as well as some canonical texts to a smaller degree), and the majority of the articles do aim tojustify the use of literature in language teaching. The theme of technology
does not, however, appear very frequently, though Soichiro Oku’s study ofprint versus digital texts in Chapter 8 stands out as an exception. Nevertheless, articles within the volume are cross-referenced, which demonstrates
a cohesive editorial approach. In the end, the volume feels well conceptualized and executed.
All in all, Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom has
something for teachers in different teaching contexts and with different
pedagogical approaches, providing plenty of inspiration for readers to try
out new methods and activities for students of varying levels of language
proficiency. Most of the articles feature clear use of examples to illustratethese approaches and methods. Teachers looking for texts and materials to
use will find many suggestions among these pages. Perhaps because someof the assertions in the book are based on research with small sample sizes,
Ronald Carter in the Epilogue concedes that “further qualitative classroom
research . . . needs to continue” (p. 318). He also touches on a variety oftechnologies that may play a larger role in future language classrooms. In
the end, the book underscores the conviction of many language teachersthat literature has an important role in developing students’ language skills,
creativity, cultural understanding, and critical thinking.

Reference

Davis, M. A., & Blossey, B. (2011). Edited books: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 92, 247-250.
https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-92.3.247

Book Reviews

Where is Language? An Anthropologist’s Questions on
Language, Literature and Performance. Ruth Finnegan.
London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2015. x + 165.

61

Reviewed by
Eucharia Donnery
Shonan Institute of Technology

For those who wish to question the nature and interaction of language, literature, and performance, Ruth Finnegan’s book offers a deeply personal
meditation commencing with the Preface, in which she reflects informallyand argues that “we need a more multiplex, challenging, but more contextually situated understanding of language, literature and performance” (p. ix).
Finnegan initially positioned herself as an ethnographer in the 1960s among
the Limba people of Sierra Leone, where her previous beliefs about language
were challenged, eventually dismantled, and later reconsidered. Throughher research, she has highlighted the need to acknowledge less formal andmore interactive aspects of communication and particularly performance.
The book is divided into nine chapters; there is neither Introduction nor
Conclusion. Rather, Finnegan immediately brings the reader into her narrative world through her confident and fluid writing style.
Chapter 1 titled “What is the Art of Language?” is where Finnegan describes the absolute certainty of what language consisted of in her undergraduate days, during which she studied Greek and Latin. This ethnocentric
view, based on two languages heavily reliant on the written word, was challenged by her anthropological fieldwork with the Limba people who focusedon the “richness and subtlety of narration” (p. 3) through stories and storytelling traditions. Whereas in traditional Western literary text language isa corpus, for the Limba the reality of language lies in the performance, andWestern texts miss “the subtle characterizations, the drama, the way thetellers used volume, pitch, tempo, repetition, emphasis, dynamics, silence,
timbre, onomatopoeia, and a whole plethora of nonverbal indications toconvey humor, pathos, irony, atmosphere” (p. 3). The holistic nature of performance makes language dynamic, multidimensional, and interactive. In
contrast, in the Self-Other colonial discourse of written and oral language
traditions, the Western perception of written language is as literate, rational,
scientific, civilized, and modern; the oral tradition is considered communal,
emotional, nonscientific, traditional, and primitive. Finnegan argues that the

62

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

documentation of concrete data about oral traditions is notoriously complex
and further points out that in cultures that place emphasis on the oral tradition, language is used “to do things rather than describe them: to recognize
and form friendships, ratify contracts, issue orders, assert a position, strikean attitude, show off as a performer” (p. 7).
In Chapter 2, “Playing With the Heroes of Human History,” Finnegan challenges “the linguistically driven narrative . . . so pervasively and consistently
deployed that it might indeed be described as a foundational myth of theWest” (p. 17). She then explores the binary nature of colonial discourse,
utilizing dynamic figures in colonial discourse theory such as Ngũgĩ wa
Thiong’o to argue for the “multiple modes of human life—touches, sounds,
sights, smells, movements, material artefacts—and of shared experience,
dynamic interactions and bodily engagements” (p. 19).
In Chapter 3, “Artisting the Self: A Tale of a Personal Journey,” Finnegantakes the personal stories from interviews to show the importance of thepersonal narrative as artistic performance and as a viable academic methodof data collection. The author proposes that all humans seek to reach existential understanding through a narrative framework. This is, in turn, said tobe performed in the retelling of the personal story, which has been shapedby cultural constructs through generic conventions, yet remains a uniquely
creative and individual chronicle.
“Forget the Words. . . . It’s Performance!” (Chapter 4) is the shortest chapter in the book and in it the author discusses “the significance of a performance approach to human expression and experience” (p. 53) through theoral traditions of the Limba people, the public reading of poetry, and theperformative traditions surrounding Christmas carols.
To identify the relationship between writing and speaking, Finnegantraces the work of Jack Goody in “Reclothing the ‘Oral’” (Chapter 5). As in
Chapter 1, she argues that a more holistic approach is necessary for successful human communication to occur.
With “Song. What Comes First: Words, Music, or Performance?” as the titleof Chapter 6, Finnegan puts forth that the order of these does not matterbut posits that the words and music are integral components of the performance.
In her answer to the question, “Competence and Performance: Was
Chomsky Right After All?” (Chapter 7), Finnegan refutes Chomsky’s theory
on generative grammar and structure but accepts his idea of language as
cognitive and, therefore, performative.

Book Reviews

63

In Chapter 8, “Poem and Story: The Arts of Dreaming and Waking to Sweet
Words,” Finnegan offers the idea that although language is natural and innate, human beings have been carving out their own meanings to reflect
their cultural realities. Through the stories of others expressed in words,
Finnegan’s own dreamscape has been profoundly altered. She gives examples of writers throughout history who have used their own dream narratives as impetus for the creation of poetry and song.
In the closing chapter, “Where is Literature?” (Chapter 9), Finnegan points
out that although Western scholars traditionally perceived literature as
written text and therefore static, the actual aim of many fields of literaryarts (such as theatre, opera, poetry, and storytelling) is actually about dynamic performance. Subsequently, she uses Homer to give evidence that thestatic nature of the written word is not the complete picture, and that theperformative aspect to literature must be included. She then references thisargument within the contemporary context of English poetry performancesthat take place in the public domain, such as pubs and colleges, as well as
the “slam” performances in the United States. She argues that literature ismultidimensional, multisensory, interactive, and rich. To support her case,
Finnegan quotes Shirane (2005) on Japanese poetry that “exists not only as
performed but also as physical object, realized through the calligraphy, thecolour of the paper, and the sketches that illustrate it: the poem is meant tobe seen as material” (p. 134). Finnegan closes the book by acknowledging
that the realm of the verbal can be elusive, but by understanding the multiplexity in literature, human nature and cultural practices can meet theiroptimal potential and we are able to gain understanding and truly appreciate the literatures of the world.
Throughout this uniquely structured book, Finnegan provides an extraordinary blend of the everyday with the world of academia. She fulfills her aim
to author a book that approaches language, literature, and performance as acomplex, multidimensional, and evolving entity and this title will appeal toreaders with an interest in all three.

Reference

Shirane, H. (2005). Performance, visuality, and textuality: The case of Japanese
poetry. Oral Tradition, 20(2), 217-232.

64

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Literature in Language Education (2nd ed.). Geoff Hall.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. xi+340 pp.
Reviewed by
Paul Freeborn
Ritsumeikan University

In Literature in Language Education, Geoff Hall provides an overview ofcurrent research into how literature has been and is being used in second
language education and also outlines areas for relevant research projects
in the future. Literature is often regarded as a source of authentic language
input, a way of exposing language learners to other cultures, and a meansof motivating language students. As Hall points out, however, many of theseideas rest on assumptions with little in the way of empirical support. Hall
also acknowledges that there is little research into the use of literature insecond language specific contexts. Therefore, he frequently draws upon L1
literature studies as providing potential insight into the usefulness of literature in second language education as well as models for future research.
In this thoughtfully written work, Hall has updated his first edition by addressing new research in the fields of language education and literature. In
addition, he provides a list of expanded teaching resources that have appeared since the first edition in 2005.
The book is divided into three parts, each of which is made up of threechapters. The first part, “Language, Literature, and Education,” examines
the three fields identified in the title of the book. The first chapter includes
a detailed exploration of the language of literature. Hall opens the chapter
with a question, asking if there is a distinct language used in literature that isdifferent from other, “ordinary” language uses. The answer to this question,
convincingly argued by Hall, is that there is not. One important consequenceof this for second language teachers is that the language of literature is morevaried than those of conversations contrived for use in ESL textbooks. He
then identifies key areas of research in literary language, including (among
others) creativity, style, and narrative.
In Chapter 2, Hall turns his attention to the reading of literature. Again, he
frames the chapter around a set of questions about what the dominant models for reading literature are and how the experience of second or foreign
language students of literature might differ from those of L1 students. The
reading of literature is a transactional process between the reader and theBook Reviews

65

text, but as Hall points out, there is considerable disagreement on whether
the text or the reader is the more important factor in the equation. Aftersummarizing this debate, the author more deeply addresses the idea of areader and explores the question of what makes a good reader.
In Chapter 3, Hall looks into what is to be gained from the study of literature and more specifically how literature and language relate to culture. Hall
initially provides a broad historical overview for the teaching of literature.
He then cites three kinds of arguments made in favor of the use of literaturein the language education context: affective arguments (reading literature isfun), cultural arguments (reading literature expands understanding of othercultures), and psycholinguistic arguments (reading literature helps improve
language and inferencing skills). Nevertheless, Hall points out that the current research supporting these claims is inconclusive.
In the second part of the book, Hall explores more specific approaches
to the teaching of literature in language education and identifies importantstudies—both in the sense of what these studies make clear and what needs
to be further explored. Chapter 4 is focused primarily on the language ofliterature itself, and in it Hall identifies specific aspects of language thatcan be problematic for second language students. An example is the roleof metaphor and figurative language, which can prove challenging for nonnative speakers. Hall cites studies by Lindstromberg and Boers (2008) andPicken (2005; 2007) who argue that second language learners need to beable to deal with figurative language. Other areas of research identified inthis chapter include foregrounding and corpus stylistics, as well as simplification, readability, and graded readers. Hall points out that although research in the field of language education suggests graded readers may assist
with vocabulary development, they are less useful as a vehicle for literary
discussions because, in his view, the act of simplifying the language alters
the potential meanings of the original text. Additionally, Hall perceives thetransition from graded readers to authentic texts as a difficult challengeeven for advanced second language learners.
In Chapter 5, Hall returns to the idea of skilled readers first raised in
Chapter 2. Specific aspects of readers and reading covered in this chapter
include: (a) cognitive studies, (b) protocol studies in relation to the readingof poetry, (c) the reading of stories, and (d) affect in literary reading. This
chapter contains an interesting analysis of the reading of poetry—comparing skilled (L1) readers of poetry, “ordinary” (L1) readers of poetry, and second language readers of poetry. The conclusion is that the second language
learners, once they had achieved a certain level of proficiency, responded

66

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

in a similar fashion as did the nonexpert, ordinary (L1) readers in that they
focused on the same vocabulary and surface features of the language. Thissuggests that there is a skill to literary reading that is developed independently of language.
Hall next examines how education has attempted to integrate literature
into high school and university classrooms (Chapter 6). This includes efforts
to define a canon of works, both in Britain and the United States. The discussion then moves into means by which schools and teachers assess students,
ranging from comprehension type questions that can be taken directly fromthe text to more personal-response, essay-type questions. At the classroom
level, Hall cites an admittedly small-scale study by Kim (2004) that suggests
reading circles and discussion groups show more promise than traditional,
teacher-centered literature discussions in fostering student appreciation ofliterature. The chapter finishes with a cautionary note on the idea of using
literature to promote intercultural awareness. Research by Naidoo (1994)
has shown that attempts to use literature for such purposes has the potential to backfire and reinforce, rather than challenge, students’ previously
held attitudes.
The third part provides a guide for research into literature and language
education. Much of this section will be redundant for experienced researchers, but for those less experienced it provides a useful and relevant starting
point. In Chapter 7, Hall identifies strategies that might be employed in suchresearch, looking specifically at experimental research, verbal protocols,surveys, case studies, narrative inquiry, and ethnographic studies. Eachstrategy is further broken down with an overview, followed by more specific IMRD (introduction, method, results, discussion) subpoints dealing
with Aims, Methodology, Results, and Commentary. Chapter 8 is in parta research miniguide and in part a list of potential research projects thatmight provide insight into important areas of literature in language education. Finally, Chapter 9 contains a list of useful resources (e.g., key journals,
websites, and professional organizations) for those aspiring to undertakesuch research projects.
Although Hall provides useful information and insight into the field
throughout, the manner in which the book is organized makes it a challenging read at times. In fairness, the interrelated nature of the topics probably
means that some repetition is unavoidable. However, the inclusion of key
points, questions, and quotes in text boxes at various points on the pagecan be distracting. These formatting tools sometimes serve to effectively
highlight important information, but at other times they disrupt the flow

Book Reviews

67of the argument and could be better integrated. An example of this can beseen on pages 56-57, which begins with a text box containing a quote from
Jonathan Culler, includes a highlighted explanation of Culler’s concepts atthe bottom of page 56, and then, in the middle of the facing page, there isanother text box with a bullet-point list of Culler’s ideas regarding the reading of literature. Interspersed amongst these boxes is the nonhighlighted,
nonboxed main prose. These are, however, fairly minor quibbles and do nottake away from the overall merits of the book.
As was his aim, Geoff Hall provides a wealth of ideas for research projects
to further develop our understanding of the potential uses of literature inlanguage development. Teachers looking for an action research project willfind Literature in Language Education, 2nd Edition an invaluable resource;
however, even those who are only interested in using literature as part of asecond language class will find this book worth a look.

References

Kim, M. (2004). Literature discussions in adult L2 learning. Language and Education, 18, 145-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666872

Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2008). The mnemonic effect of noticing alliterationin lexical chunks. Applied Linguistics, 29, 200-222.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn007
Naidoo, B. (1994). Through whose eyes? Exploring racism through literature
with white students. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching
language and literacy in social context (pp. 62-81). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters and the Open University.

Picken, J. D. (2005). Helping foreign language learners make sense of literature withmetaphor awareness raising. Language Awareness, 14, 142-152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668830
Picken, J. D. (2007). Literature, metaphor, and the foreign language learner. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

68

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Contemporary Task-Based Language Teaching in Asia. MichaelThomas and Hayo Reinders (Eds.). London, UK: Bloomsbury,
2015. xxiv + 387 pp.
Reviewed by
Justin Harris
Kindai University

At the third biennial “TBLT in Asia” conference in Kyoto, Marcos Benevides,
one of the plenary speakers and author of one of the first published textbooks
using a task-based approach, strongly suggested that if task-based language
teaching (TBLT) is to become widely used in Japan and Asia, it needs tobranch out from the language of SLA experiments to something tangible thatteachers can put into practice. Contemporary Task-Based Language Teachingin Asia is an attempt to address this, a mix of classroom-based experimental
studies and descriptions of the practical implementation of tasks in a varietyof contexts throughout Asia. At 387 pages, it is not a short book, but evenat that, it can only be expected to be a very rough overview of the subject.
To expect comprehensive coverage of the various manifestations of TBLT
across multiple teaching and language level contexts, in a geographical areathat contains over 60% of the world’s population, would be unrealistic. It
does, however, focus on the teaching of only one language: Although theauthors do not specify that English teaching is the only target, it is the only
language discussed throughout.
One consistent theme concerns the importance of the role of teachers.
Students’ voices do come through in a number of chapters, and there is sometalk of curriculum and government policy, but the vast majority of discussion
concerns teachers. David R. Carless, in the final chapter of the book, sums
this up nicely when he argues that “whilst policymakers and educational
ministries may set directions and form proposals, it is what teachers do inclassrooms that directly affects the success of any reform agenda” (p. 367).
The book is divided into six parts, each on a different theme, the first focussing on a geographical area, South East Asia (although only one chapter,by Nicole Takeda, focusses on a specific South-East Asian country, Cambodia). The section starts with a good general introduction to issues of TBLT
implementation across Asia by Chun Lai. In Chapter 3, Shaoqian Luo and
Yafu Gong investigate current approaches to ELT in Chinese schools (which
they summarise as focussing on native-speakerism and relying on a content-

Book Reviews

69

based approach), and the feasibility of implementing an “adapted” TBLT.
They conclude that there are three obstacles to the successful implementation of TBLT: (a) the testing system (generally high-stakes grammar-focussed tests), (b) top-down curriculum implementation (without sufficientteacher input and training for teachers), and (c) the lack of developmentof suitable course books. An important question raised in this chapter also
concerns whether teachers are consistent in their understandings of TBLT.
Unfortunately, at times, the reader is made to wonder whether there is evena consistent understanding of TBLT among the contributors of this book, so
varied are the descriptions.
One very positive aspect of the book is that many of the writers (with acouple of unfortunate exceptions) avoid essentialism in their descriptions
and interpretations of teachers and learners in Asia. It is not uncommon
for writers to unquestionably, and often without reference to anything morethan personal opinion, describe passive learners with a lack of creativity,
autonomy, or critical thinking skills. As Chun Lai states in Chapter 2, “Essentialist statements abound in the literature” (p. 12) and she highlights
the inappropriateness of such blanket statements when “the socioculturallandscape of Asia is constantly changing” (p. 13). She goes on to give somegood examples of Asian learners happily and successfully accepting TBLT
approaches, and as such contributes in a small way to dispelling this persistent myth.
Part 2 begins with Nguyen Gia Viet, Le Van Cahn, and Roger Barnard (Chapter 5), who found large discrepancies between what Vietnamese teachers
think they are doing and the actual classroom reality. One of the teachers
described in the chapter followed a “TBLT” approach that consisted of 40
minutes of introducing language form, followed by a 5-minute communicative activity. Chapter 6 continues the theme of misunderstandings in a very
literal sense. Writer Yuefeng Zhang points out that mistranslations of policy
documents have resulted in teachers’ misunderstandings of “task.” Different
translations of the term task (hard enough to do in English it seems) haveresulted in one of the three primary school teachers in her study in South
China equating task with “conducting surveys” (p. 94). Another teacher
described in the chapter “confused task with teaching objectives” (p. 93),
leading to deductive grammar teaching. The author suggests that two of theteachers conducted classes in line with the “weak” form of TBLT, but fromher descriptions of what the teachers were doing, it could as well have beena Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) approach or possibly even grammar translation.

70

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

In Part 3, “Teachers’ Perspectives,” Bao Trang, Thi Nguyen, Jonathan Newton, and David Crabbe (Chapter 11) present an interesting multiple-casestudy into the pretask part of the lessons of nine EFL teachers and theirstudents (they neglect to say how many) in a Vietnamese high school. Teachers were divided on whether pretask work should be more structured or
freer (which the authors align with the weak and strong versions of TBLT
respectively). However, two thirds of the students stated they preferred
freer pretask work.
The fourth part features four chapters that look at teaching with technology, an area that Thomas and Reinders (2010) have previously edited
an entire book on. Three out of the four chapters report on new research,
and Thomas provides an overview of ICT in Japan (Chapter 14). In Chapter 12, Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi investigates the effect of prior knowledge
on the occurrence of language-related episodes during text chat. Mark R.
Freiermuth and Hsin-chou Huang (Chapter 13) explain how online text chatcan allow students to contribute more equally in discussions, without more
vocal or confident students taking over, while providing solid technologybased task ideas. Lastly, in Chapter 15, Reinders, Onuma Lakarnchua, andMark Pegrum look at mobile augmented reality (AR) tasks, a promising area
for TBLT to embrace.
Part 5 of the book focusses on materials, an area arguably vital to the success or failure of TBLT. In Chapter 20, Brian Tomlinson provides an overview
of his vast experience introducing TBLT materials to learners in Asia. His
basic argument is that a strong TBLT approach is possible with learners
throughout Asia, and that in his own personal experience students haveboth responded positively to the approach and outperformed students using
more traditional methods. His chapter includes a very practical seven-stepguide on how to sequence activities for a TBLT class. Tomlinson’s preference
for the strong version of TBLT is clear when he criticizes some of the locally
based contributors to the present volume for promoting weaker versions.
At the same time, he admits that he has no empirical evidence to back up his
assertions and that he was fortunate to have higher level learners in somesituations. Moonyoung Park (Chapter 16) returns to the theme of inconsistency between national curriculum and student needs. His needs analysis of
185 middle school students and nine teachers in South Korea suggested thatmany of these stakeholders feel that a heavy emphasis on writing in the national curriculum is unnecessary, understandably because college entrance
exams focus on reading and listening. In Chapter 17, Pornapit Darasawang
provides an interesting overview of how a TBLT learning curriculum wasBook Reviews

71

introduced and subsequently evolved to suit the local context in Thailand.
However, descriptions of the locally situated version sound a lot like PPP,in which the students’ need for explicit language instruction is provided bylanguage form input through regular commercial language textbooks.
The last part is about an area that might be the most important for manyand is in need of further research: task-based language assessment (TBLA).
It is also the least satisfying section, perhaps an indication of the complexityand difficulty of the topic. In the two chapters in this section, only Yuko Goto
Butler in Chapter 21 describes new empirical research into TBLA in Asia,
comparing paired assessment and individual assessment approaches withyoung language learners.
At “TBLT in Asia” in 2016, the other plenary speaker, Rod Ellis, reaffirmed
his position that TBLT is an approach, not a method, and as such is not as
inflexible as some believe it to be. In his Epilogue, Ellis also states his position that teachers should not “adapt TBLT to the local context by opting fortask-supported rather than task-based instruction” (p. 383) because that
leads to an end result of Presentation-Practice-Production (although hedoes admit that there is a place for PPP in language teaching). The different
interpretations appearing throughout the book suggest that this may indeed
be the case and the results illustrate how difficult it may be to implement
TBLT from the top down without full teacher support and understanding.

References

Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2010). Task-based language learning andteaching with technology. New York, NY: Continuum.

72

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Researching Translation and Interpreting. Claudia V. Angelelliand Brian James Baer (Eds.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2016.
xvii + 291 pp.
Reviewed by
Jakub E. Marszalenko
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS) is probably one of the most interdisciplinary fields in the broad realm of linguistics. As the editors note in
the introduction to Researching Translation and Interpreting, even though
the practice of translation and interpreting has a very long history in humancivilization, it has only been half a century since it gained a position as an
academic discipline in its own right. Consequently, TIS had to borrow fromother, more established disciplines—such as sociology, anthropology, andapplied linguistics among others—to investigate not only the products ofinterpreting and translation, but also the processes, the actors involved inthese processes, and in the last few decades, the technologies behind thetranslational phenomena as well. However, as Angelelli and Baer point out
in Part I of the volume, this borrowing is not, and cannot be, carried out
blindly—theories and research paradigms developed in other fields need
to be “adapted and infused with a deep sensitivity to language(s)” (p. 7).
As a result of this, the interdisciplinarity of TIS presents both “the greatest
challenges and opportunities” (p. 5).
Given the wide variety of disciplines contributing to TIS, compiling a volume that covers a myriad of research topics and foci in the field and thatwould address the needs of a broad and diversified readership is no easytask. However, this is exactly what Researching Translation and Interpretingis aimed at. It is meant for not only undergraduate and graduate students in
the TIS field, but also interpreting and translation practitioners, as well as
scholars in other disciplines who recognize “the importance of considering
questions of translation/interpreting in the generation of knowledge but
may not be familiar with the methods for studying those questions that havebeen developed in the field” (p. 4).
The book accomplishes this goal exceptionally well due to the variety ofissues addressed and the easy-to-follow structure. It is divided into threeparts: “Exploring Translation and Interpreting”—an overview of the TIS
field and its research traditions; “Mapping the Field”—an exploration into
various aspects and elements of the translational phenomena; and “Re-Book Reviews73

search Methods”—a discussion of not only the past and present research
trends in the field but also prospects for its further development.
One of the more interesting aspects of Researching Translation and Interpreting is that contributors take on the intrinsic elements of interpreting andtranslation, which are frequently either overlooked or underresearched insimilar publications. For example, the authors in Part II explore such themes
as agency and role (Chapter 1, Sergey Tyunelev), bilingualism and multilingualism (Chapter 2, Angelelli), fictional representations of interpreters andtranslators (Chapter 5, Klaus Kaindl), gender and sexuality (Chapter 6, Baerand Françoise Massardier-Kenney), and power and conflict (Chapter 9, Anna
Strowe). These topics are of utmost importance in translational practice, so
their exploration in scholarly work is likewise crucial.
As Strowe observes in Chapter 9, “translation and interpreting, like anyother socially imbedded process, are shaped by vectors that influence communicative choices on the part of the language mediators, as well as thereception of both the source and the target text” (p. 118). However, thesecommunicative choices are often insufficiently recognized by persons andinstitutions working with or hiring interpreters and translators, resulting incertain constraints and demands being imposed on this occupational group.
One example of such demands is the notion of interpreter’s or translator’stransparency, which is often argued for but rarely attainable. As Angelellirightly points out, “Translation/interpreting is not transparent because it
mediates between different semiotic (including linguistic) codes and different sociocultural systems, all of which are unique, and so mediation
between them inevitably requires selection, reduction, and augmentation,
making shifts inevitable” (p. 19). Nonexistent or insufficient understanding of the role of interpreters and translators and the processes involved in
the translational phenomena often leads to situations whereby those in theprofession are reported to be “poorly treated, underpaid, and underrated
manpower in the industry of text production and business firms, or in community service contexts” (Chapter 10, Rakefet Sela-Sheffy, p. 136).
In Part III, a wide range of different academic traditions and disciplinesthat have contributed to the research into translation and interpreting are
introduced and explored. With a logical and accessible structure, each of
the authors of the 13 chapters in this part (Chapters 12 through 24) startwith a short definition and the origins of the paradigm in question, thendiscuss its application in other disciplines, and finally explore its use or its
potential for use in TIS. In addition, the chapters introduce sample studies
pertaining to translation and interpreting in which the paradigm discussed

74

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017is implemented, and the authors contemplate the potential of or difficulties
and obstacles to further applications in the field. Some of such paradigms,
such as conversation analysis (Chapter 15, Laura Gavioli), critical discourse
analysis (Chapter 17, Ian Mason), and narrative analysis (Chapter 22, Mona
Baker), are well-established and widely applied methodological approaches
in other linguistic disciplines. Others take advantage of the technologicalprogress of the past few decades, thus allowing scholars to apply tools suchas key-stroke logging, eye-tracking, or think-aloud protocols to conduct
more in-depth research into the processes (cognitive and otherwise) taking
place during the translational phenomena (Chapter 23, Claudio Baraldi andChristopher D. Mellinger).
The wide variety of topics and issues covered and the in-depth explorationof the scholarly traditions contributing to TIS are definitely some of the mostnoteworthy features of the volume. In addition to the editors, the diverse
expertise and theoretical backgrounds of the contributors, including wellestablished names in TIS such as Mona Baker, Daniel Gile, and Ian Mason,
make this book a remarkable resource for those engaged in research intotranslation and interpreting. However, one must not mistake this volume for
an introductory course book on the study of translation and interpretation.
It is not meant to be one. Exploration of basic concepts and paradigms or a
general introduction to the field should be sought elsewhere, such as from In
Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (Baker, 2011), Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (Munday, 2016), or Introducing Interpreting Studies (Pöchhacker, 2016). This volume is meant to broaden thereaders’ perspectives on translation and interpreting and encourage themto start or expand their research. It is fair to say that Researching Translation and Interpreting is exceptionally useful to those with at least somebackground in the field of TIS or linguistics in general, but may be somewhat
challenging for readers seeking to gain basic knowledge of interpreting andtranslation from either practical or scholarly perspectives.

References

Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4thed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.

Book Reviews

75

Language for Specific Purposes. Sandra Gollin-Kies, David R.
Hall, and Stephen H. Moore. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan,
2015. xvii + 276 pp.

Reviewed by
Sayaka Morita
San Jose State University

Globalization and advancements in digital technology have increased thedemand for the learning and teaching of language for communication in
subject-specific environments. In Language for Specific Purposes, Gollin-Kies,
Hall, and Moore provide a complete overview of the history and concepts,
classroom application and pedagogy, and research of language for specificpurposes (LSP). Written by three LSP experts with global experience inteaching and an extensive background in course design and materials development, this book serves as a comprehensive text for LSP and is particularly
useful for graduate students and those seeking to learn more about the field.
The book is organized into four parts: in Part I (Chapters 1-3) the authors
introduce the concepts and issues for LSP, Part II (Chapters 4-9) addresses
LSP in the classroom, Part III (Chapters 10-12) is focused on conducting applied research in LSP, and Part IV (Chapter 13) provides valuable resources
for readers, including recommended readings and a list of software that canbe used for data analysis in LSP research. Throughout the book, key concepts are highlighted and summarized, but Chapters 1-3 do particularly wellin providing the reader with background information on LSP’s history andtheories while highlighting key trends.
In Chapters 2 and 3, the authors explain that social constructionist ideas
have underpinned ethnographic and genre-based approaches in LSP teaching. Furthermore, the key to negotiating and understanding relations among
aspects of language, power, and discourse is critical language awareness, an
important feature of LSP. The authors elaborate that “the LSP practitioner
has to be able to identify the ‘owner’ of the specific purposes and has to address related issues such as who has a say in how the purposes are defined,prioritized, neglected and so on” (p. 77).
In Chapter 4 on course planning, the authors outline the contexts LSP cantake place in:• Situation A, where there is no immediate need to use the target language but which is taught in an environment where the language is themost common or primary means of communication;

76•

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Situation B, where there is an immediate need and opportunity in thelocal community for immediate use;
• Situation C, where there is immediate need but which is taught in anontarget-language environment;• Situation D, where there is no immediate need for the language and little or no use in the local environment.
These four situations form a two-axis coordinate system of need and opportunity (p. 79) that can aid course designers in assessing the constraints
and opportunities of a specific program. This approach in turn can then help
establish realistic expectations for both the learners and the employers orother program sponsors. LSP practitioners are advised to keep the context
and needs in mind and also integrate needs analysis, program delivery, andprogram evaluation as a continuous process, not an end in itself.
Although technology has made it easier for material and curriculum
developers to access and share resources, there are major issues that practitioners have faced in course design and implementation. Such problems
are related to organizational structure, academic respectability, disciplinary
suspicion, and institutional inertia and are covered in Chapter 5. Validity andreliability are crucial features of LSP assessment and are taken up in Chapter
6. A key concern for many teachers has been that assessment should closely
resemble the demands of the target context without sacrificing reliability.
Although improving learners’ capacity to deal with the challenges they will
face in their target environment is the ultimate goal of an LSP course, the authors explain that it is still rare for learners to be assessed on their linguistic
performance after they enter the target environment (p. 116).
Specificity, interdisciplinarity, and multidisciplinarity are explained in
Chapter 7; LSP teacher practices and research-informed pedagogy practices
are discussed in Chapter 8. The authors highlight the differences between
general language teaching and LSP teaching by stating that to devise
classroom activities and curricula, LSP practitioners need a combinationof research and pedagogical expertise because the practices, routines, andassumptions of the targeted workplace or discipline are necessary in developing classroom methodology.
The focus of Chapter 9 is on working in an LSP environment, managing
classrooms in LSP, and addressing professional development in LSP. In
terms of managing LSP classrooms, the main issues are (a) who the learners
are, (b) what their proficiency level in the target language is, and (c) how
much they know about the subject or specific purpose area. The authors

Book Reviews

77claim that LSP practitioners do not need to have been professionals in thesubject area, but to fulfill their role as teachers, they need to have at leasta “threshold” level of knowledge of the subject. The authors further advisethat such knowledge can be acquired by closely collaborating with a subject
specialist in a team-teaching relationship (p. 136).
In Chapter 10, the authors present research practices in LSP. Research
trends include the importance and prevalence of corpus-based research andgenre studies, identity issues, advanced academic literacies, English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), and researchers’ recognition of a progressively interconnected world (Belcher, Johns, & Paltridge, 2011; Paltridge & Starfield, 2011).
Specifically, greater attention has been given to ethnographic methods
providing rich contextualized information. Chapter 11, on case studies in
LSP research and researchable projects, seems particularly useful for graduate students and anyone wishing to carry out projects and research. The
summary of a needs analysis done by Cowling (2007) regarding workplace
English at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries may be of particular interest to JALT
readers as it takes place in a Japanese corporate environment. The volume
closes with a wealth of resources such as a list of LSP publications, making it
a valuable section for readers seeking further study and research.
As each chapter serves as a stepping-stone to the next, it is recommended
to read the book chapters in order. However, for those with a narrow focus,
concentrating on the chapters of a specific part is certainly feasible. The
book is clearly organized and user-friendly throughout with concise writing.
Each chapter begins with bullet points of what the chapter will accomplish,
highlights key concepts and quotes from prominent scholars with different
perspectives, and ends with concluding comments and discussion questions
for further thinking. Diagrams and charts are also used effectively to help
readers organize information, as is the case with Figure 2.1 (p. 30), which
neatly summarizes the key trends affecting the learning, teaching, and researching of LSP. Language for Specific Purposes can be used as requiredor supplemental reading material for graduate-level courses and is highly
recommended to all scholars interested in learning more about LSP.

References

Belcher, D., Johns, A. M., & Paltridge, B. (2011). New directions in English for specificpurposes research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.371075

78

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017

Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive
workplace courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes,
26, 426-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.003
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2011). Research in English for specific purposes. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning(Vol. 2, pp. 106-121). New York, NY: Routledge.

Canadian English: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. James A.
Walker. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. xiv + 147 pp.
Reviewed byAndrew Reimann
Utsunomiya University

Canadian English: A Sociolinguistic Perspective is a unique and practicalanalysis of the English spoken in Canada and provides both a linguistic andsociolinguistic perspective. The volume starts with an outline of issues ofidentity and the problems involved in distinguishing Canadian English as a
specific dialect. Following this, the author provides an overview of English
as it is spoken around the world and offers a short rationale for applying asociolinguistic approach to the study of language. The aim is to provide asample of important research and an explanation of the rationale for anddifficulties in conducting an in-depth study of Canadian English.
The book is divided into seven comprehensive chapters that describe theorigins and foundations of Canadian English and analyze the geographical,
structural, linguistic, social, and cultural aspects of the language found northof the 49th Parallel. Each chapter is clearly written and organized with relevant examples and also includes a glossary, list of references, and an easily
accessible summary.
In Chapter 1, to help readers fully understand the challenges of a sociolinguistic analysis, Walker notes several problems in distinguishing CanadianEnglish as a dialect. Identifying a national dialect implies greater differentiation from other language varieties than might actually exist and assumes
a higher degree of internal consistency than may be present. Superficial
differences between American and Canadian English per se may be either
political or have greater variance east to west, rather than north or southBook Reviews

79of the border. However, Walker’s rationale for a sociolinguistic analysis of
Canadian English is that most studies of North American English tend toignore Canada altogether. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of CanadianEnglish as a variation in its own right is warranted. Walker further explainsthat dialects are not just regional constructions but contain psychological,
political, and social meaning for speakers of those dialects and should begiven proper consideration. He therefore advocates a sociolinguistic approach to encompass and accurately describe the variables and relevant factors regarding the distinguishing features of Canadian English. According toWalker’s analysis, Canadian English is more than just a structural variationin pronunciation, vocabulary, or grammar; rather, it is the social, cultural,and historical elements that define the language as unique and worth considering.
Following this thorough introduction to what Canadian English is, how it
should be studied, and why a sociolinguistic approach is being used, Chapter
2 continues with a brief overview of the field of linguistics and the methodology of sociolinguistic inquiry. This overview includes an introduction
to phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics with examples
and an analysis of how they apply to the study of Canadian English. As thesecomponents of language analysis vary based on context, Walker prefers thesociolinguistic rather than purely linguistic approach to fully understandthe nuances and qualities of Canadian English.
Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the origins of CanadianEnglish and focuses on the language-external historical events that led toits development. By exploring theories of new dialect formation such as
language transmission and diffusion, founder effects, dialect mixing, andlanguage contact, Walker aims to characterize the unique qualities thatmake up Canadian English. A further analysis of Canada’s rich and diverse
history puts these theories in perspective to give a complete picture of thedevelopment of the dialect. The author describes settlements in Newfoundland, British and loyalist immigration after the war of 1812, as well as themass immigration and population shifts of the 19th and 20th centuries, anddocuments how Canadian English became a socially evolving variation thatis historically and demographically diverse.
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 focus on the linguistic elements of Canadian English
and describe the lexical, phonological, and grammatical differences thatmake it a distinct dialect. The Canadian lexicon is quite diverse and multicultural as it is not only a blend of Americanisms and British English, but alsoof Aboriginal languages and language introduced by immigrants and other

80

JALT Journal, 39.1 • May 2017minorities. To highlight this diversity, in Chapter 4, Walker focuses not only
on Canadian English as it differs from other national varieties but also how
it varies regionally within Canada. This lexical analysis reflects Canada’s
colourful history and illustrates the common heritage Canadian English
speakers have as a result of borrowing, innovation, and semantic shift.
With respect to phonetic and phonological variations, the sound system
of Canadian English is characterized primarily by a great degree of diversity
in vowel phonemes. This diversity includes Canadian Raising (the raising ofdiphthongs before voiceless consonants in words like about or house), theCanadian Vowel Shift (the pronunciation of words like pasta or drama), andthe Low-Back Merger (the blurring or merging of the vowels in words suchas pin and pen). In addition to General Canadian English, the phonetics of theCanadian dialect are said to include the regional dialects of Quebec English,
Maritime English, and Newfoundland English.
The grammar of Canadian English is much less salient or regionally identifiable than are the grammars of other varieties of English. Most Canadians
may be aware of regional, lexical, or phonetic differences, but they wouldfind it harder to distinguish differences of usage. To help readers understandthese usage differences, Chapter 6 focuses on morphological, syntactic, anddiscourse-pragmatic features of the dialect. Most differences are those of ageneral North American English variety and are not uniquely Canadian, but
Canadian English is uniquely different in two significant regions: Newfoundland and Labrador English and African Nova Scotian English (p. 108). As
such syntactic variation is difficult to distinguish, Walker questions whether
regional variations are indeed valid or whether variation in grammar extends across any particular language. To study this empirically, the author
considers the examples of variable agreement in existentials and in thegrammaticalization of quotative be like.
The final chapter looks at the future of Canadian English. The author predicts that language change will be determined by social rather than regional
or internal linguistic factors in the future. As a result of increasing ethnolinguistic diversity, Canadian English will continue to evolve and changesocially. This chapter concludes with suggestions on how to accurately study
and document this change by applying the sociolinguistic methodology proposed in the introduction.
In conclusion, the author suggests that the fear that Canadian English is
being Americanized or heavily influenced by speakers with different linguistic or ethnic heritage is largely unfounded. Although the frequency of usage
or rate of change may vary, users of Canadian English, regardless of theirBook Reviews

81

background or heritage, seem to acquire the standard features of CanadianEnglish, especially in lexical and phonetic categories such as regional vocabulary and aspects of pronunciation, in particular the characteristic vowel
shifts, raising, and mergers.
Overall, the book is an interesting, comprehensive, and highly relevant
introduction to the study of Canadian English. It offers many clear examples, descriptions, and explanations of regional and linguistic differences. Of
particular interest to those in the field of applied linguistics are the sociolinguistic framework and the empirical methodology for conducting researchand quantifying the range of social influences that make their their mark on
Canadian English.

Information for Contributors
All submissions must conform to JALT Journal Editorial Policy and Guidelines.

Editorial Policy

JALT Journal, the refereed research journal of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (Zenkoku
Gogaku Kyouiku Gakkai), invites empirical and theoretical research articles and research reports on
second and foreign language teaching and learning in Japanese and Asian contexts. Submissions from
Asian and other international contexts are accepted if applicable to language teaching in Japan. Areasof particular interest include but are not limited to the following:
1. Curriculum design and teaching methods		
4. Testing and evaluation
2. Classroom-centered research					5. Teacher training
3. Cross-cultural studies							6. Language learning and acquisition
7. Overviews of research and practice in related fields

The editors encourage submissions in five categories: (a) full-length articles, (b) short research
reports (Research Forum), (c) essays on language education framed in theory and supported byargumentation that may include either primary or secondary data (Perspectives), (d) comments on
previously published JALT Journal articles (Point to Point), and (e) book and media reviews (Reviews).
Articles should be written for a general audience of language educators; therefore, statistical techniques and specialized terms must be clearly explained.

Guidelines

Style

JALT Journal follows the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6thedition (available from APA Order Department, P.O. Box 2710, Hyattsville, MD 20784, USA; byemail: <order@apa.org>; from the website: <www.apa.org/books.ordering.html>). Consult recent copies of JALT Journal or TESOL Quarterly for examples of documentation and references.
A downloadable copy of the JALT Journal style sheet is also available on our website at <http://
jalt-publications.org/jj/>.

FormatFull-length articles must not be more than 20 pages in length (6,000 words), including references,notes, tables, and figures. Research Forum submissions should not be more than 10 pages in length.
Perspectives submissions should be not more than 15 pages in length. Point to Point comments on
previously published articles should not be more than 675 words in length, and Reviews should
generally range from 500 to 1000 words. All submissions must be word processed in A4 or 8.5 x
11” format with line spacing set at 1.5 lines. For refereed submissions, names and identifyingreferences should appear only on the cover sheet. Authors are responsible for the accuracy ofreferences and reference citations.

Submission Procedure

Please submit the following materials, except for reviews, as an email attachment in MS Word format
to the appropriate editor indicated below:
1. Cover sheet with the title and author name(s).
2. One (1) copy of the manuscript, with no reference to the author. Do not use running heads.
3. Contact information sheet, including one author’s full address and, where available, a fax
number.
4. Abstract (no more than 150 words).
5. Japanese translation of the title and abstract, if possible (no more than 400ji).
6. Biographical sketch(es) (no more than 50 words each).
Submissions will be acknowledged within 1 month of their receipt. All manuscripts are firstreviewed by the Editor to ensure they comply with JALT Journal Guidelines. Those considered for
publication are subject to blind review by at least two readers, with special attention given to (1)compliance with JALT Journal Editorial Policy, (2) the significance and originality of the submission,and (3) the use of appropriate research design and methodology. Evaluation is usually completed82

Information for Contributors

83

within 3 months. Each contributing author of published articles and Book Reviews will receive one
complimentary copy of the Journal and a PDF of the article (Book Reviews are compiled together as
one PDF). JALT Journal does not provide off-prints. Contributing authors have the option of ordering
further copies of JALT Journal (contact JALT Central Office for price details).

Restrictions

Papers submitted to JALT Journal must not have been previously published, nor should they be underconsideration for publication elsewhere. JALT Journal has First World Publication Rights, as definedby International Copyright Conventions, for all manuscripts published. If accepted, the editors reserve the right to edit all copy for length, style, and clarity without prior notification to authors.

Full-Length Articles, Research Forum, Perspectives, and Point to Point Submissions
Please send submissions in these categories or general inquiries to:
jj-editor@jalt-publications.org

Anne Howard, JALT Journal Editor

Japanese-Language Manuscripts
JALT Journal welcomes Japanese-language manuscripts on second/foreign language teaching andlearning as well as Japanese-language reviews of publications. Submissions must conform to the
Editorial Policy and Guidelines given above. Authors must provide a detailed abstract in English, 500
to 750 words in length, for full-length manuscripts and a 100-word abstract for reviews. Refer to theJapanese-Language Guidelines for details. Please send Japanese-language manuscripts to:
jj-editorj@jalt-publications.org

Ken Urano, JALT Journal Japanese-Language Editor

Reviews
The editors invite reviews of books and other relevant publications in the field of language education.
A list of publications that have been sent to JALT for review is published bimonthly in The Language
Teacher. Review authors receive one copy of the Journal. Please send submissions, queries, or requests for books, materials, and review guidelines to:
jj-reviews@jalt-publications.org

Greg Rouault, JALT Journal Reviews Editor

Address for Inquiries about Subscriptions, Ordering JALT Journal, or Advertising
JALT Central OfficeUrban Edge Building 5F
1-37-9 Taito, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0016, Japan
Tel.: 03-3837-1630; Fax: 03-3837-1631(From overseas: Tel.: 81-3-3837-1630; Fax: 81-3-3837-1631)
Email: jco@jalt.org URL: www.jalt.org

JALT Journal

84

日本語論文投稿要領

JALT Journalでは日本語で執筆された論文、研究報告、実践報告、書評等を募集しています。
文体:一般的な学術論文のスタイルを用い、章立ての仕方や参考文献のデータの書き方など
は、Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.)の定める方式に合わ
せて下さい。不明の場合は、JALT Journal の英語論文を参考にするか、日本語編集者までお問い合わせ下さい。なお、JALT Journalの読者は現場の教師が主なので、特殊な専門用語や統計的手法は、わかりやすく定義するか説明を加えるなどして下さい。原稿: 長さは、参考文献リストも含め18,000字（書評の場合は1,500字）以内です。A4の用紙に横書きで、１行40字、１ページ
30行で印刷して下さい。手書きの原稿は受け付けません。
提出するもの：以下の原稿を電子メールの添付書類、あるいは郵送でお送りください。
•

執筆者の名前と所属機関名を書いた表紙•

MS-Word で保存した本文（執筆者は無記名のこと）•

執筆者連絡先（住所、電話番号、ファックス、e-mail アドレス）•

400字以内の和文要旨•

英文のタイトルと、500〜750語の英文要旨（書評の場合は100語程度の英文要旨）•

100字以内の執筆者略歴•

審査を経て掲載の認められた草稿は、図表などを全て写植版にしたものにして提出すること

査読：編集委員会で投稿要領に合っているかどうかを確認したあと、少なくとも二人の査読者が査読を行います。査読者には執筆者の名前は知らされません。査読の過程では特に、原稿がJALT Journalの目的に合っているか、言語教育にとって意味があるか、独創性はあるか、研究
計画や方法論は適切か等が判定されます。査読は通常二か月以内に終了しますが、特に投稿の多い場合などは審査にそれ以上の時間がかかることがあります。
注意：JALT Journalに投稿する原稿は、すでに出版されているものや他の学術雑誌に投稿中のものは避けて下さい。JALT Journalは、そこに掲載されるすべての論文に関して国際著作権協定による世界初出版権を持ちます。なお、お送りいただいた原稿は返却しませんので、控を保存して下さい。
投稿原稿送り先またはお問い合わせ：〒062-8605 北海学園大学 経営学部
JALT Journal 日本語編集者 浦野 研
電話:(011)841-1161(代) Fax:(011)824-7729
jj-editorj@jalt-publications.org

JALT Journal 第 39 巻
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		

第1号

2017年 4月20日 印刷
2017年 5月 1日 発行
編集人
アン・マクレラン・ハワード
発行人
リチモンド・ストゥループ
発行所
全国語学教育学会事務局〒110-0016 東京都台東区台東1-37-9 アーバンエッジビル5Ｆ
TEL（03) 3837-1630; FAX（03) 3837-1631
印刷所
コーシンシャ株式会社〒530-0043 大阪市北区天満1-18-4天満ファーストビル301 TEL（06）
6351-8795